Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:25, 14 April 2019

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 17:08:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Archives

2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 Most recent 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Placeholder neutrals

I've noticed a trend of RfA participants putting in neutral votes as placeholders, before they've actually begun their review of the candidate. Usually something like "Neutral for now as I review the candidate". I feel like an effort should be made to dissuade this sort of behavior. If you have not reviewed the candidate and are not yet sure where you stand, then you should wait it out and not enter any votes yet. Only vote neutral if you have fully reviewed the candidate and truly aren't sure whether to support or oppose, laying out your reasons where appropriate.

After all, a neutral vote does not affect the support percentage that is used to inform the final result of the RfA. Instead, the content of a neutral vote can shed insight into a candidate that can inform other participants supporting or opposing the RfA, and it can also inform the bureaucrats closing the RfA about various concerns that may be important if the RfA is really close, e.g. in the discretionary zone. A neutral vote that just says, "will vote later, haven't reviewed the candidate yet", isn't very informative. In fact, it may actually make the experience of the RfA more stressful for the candidate. Realize that the same situation is achieved by thinking quietly and voting only when you are sure. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have observed this behaviour as well. I believe this is caused by a subliminal thought like "I should make others aware that I saw the RfA, and I dont vote without reviewing the candidate." Neutral section is not a place for that, its not a waiting room. If there is a balance between opposing, and supporting rationales in your head; then you go to neutral. I think we should let the voters know about this, but I am not sure how to do it. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  Ban "neutral votes" for the first 5 days (or whatever). Realistically someone can only be neutral after a decent amount of time, weighing up the options and reading what others have written. Nigej (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with above, I’ve always thought these kinds of “votes” to be ridiculous. Aiken D 22:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. Strikes me as a form of pointless showboating. Leaky Caldron 22:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also agree. The neutral section is not meant to be a place where you go as soon as you see that an RfA has started and stay there until you've done a review of the candidate. You should only cast a !vote in that section after you've performed a review of the candidate and still can't make up your mind, with good reasoning. Using it as a placeholder is useless, imo.--SkyGazer 512 22:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well, but honestly, I'm not sure why (or if) the neutral section should even exist at all. If people want to make comments about a candidate without taking a side on whether they should be an admin or not, isn't that what the "general comments" section is for? IntoThinAir (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have time RN to write down why I think the neutral section should exist, but I think it should, and I don't mind what people are doing w/ it. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• These types of neutral votes aren't new but...they are indeed annoying and come across as attention seeking. The neutral section is useful for those who have evaluated a candidate but can't fall into the support or oppose camps; this, in turn, can help others make more informed decisions. But going neutral before evaluating is unhelpful at best and borderline trolling at worst. It doesn't benefit a candidate or other participants. Acalamari 03:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• I think placeholder statements project an air of self-importance and encourage editors to skip them. As with many things with Misplaced Pages, though, it's more trouble to try to eliminate than to ignore them. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Placeholder neutrals that add nothing to the analysis of the candidate should be discouraged and avoided. –xeno 15:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Do the 'crats not have discretion in this area under existing RFA management arrangements? Leaky Caldron 16:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We can certainly ignore them. Something that just said "placeholder neutral" would by definition have to be effectively ignored by a closing Crat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Placeholder neutrals aren't necessary but not sure they're really such a problem that we need to spend a lot of time discussing (really, complaining) and trying to "solve" it (I certainly can't recall neutrals causing me much stress in my RfA :)) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  Heh, fair enough. I guess I wanted to just put this out there, and hopefully some of the users that might be thinking about using a placeholder neutral will be encouraged to avoid doing so now. I don't think it's worth it to go through the motions of implementing a substantive process change as a result of this. Mz7 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Noting that I also believe these votes are unhelpful. While RfA is a live discussion and should be edited regularly - it should only be edited when the individual has something to add. I would say the same about any other discussion on Misplaced Pages - it would look odd in an RfC to have a placeholder - and I think the only reason we have this happening is the layout of RfA. Worm(talk) 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it has more to do with the relatively short, fixed timeline, which makes some want to give a status report of their pending participation. isaacl (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Okay, but no one particular person is needed or required to participate in an RfA. It's not a committee. –xeno 18:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree; I've already stated above my view on skipping placeholder comments. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• These are easy enough to ignore when closing RFA's, and I don't think there is much value in making rules against these. That being said, I agree with most people above that these are not really useful either - perhaps expanding on the directions in Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship may be a good first start. — xaosflux 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's helpful to talk about bureaucrat discretion to disregard the votes. Very few of these votes remain in a placeholder state at the RFA's conclusion. This issue affects the conduct of RFAs, not their closure. xaosflux's suggestion to update the editnotice seems like a better first step than adopting a standing rule. AGK ■ 19:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• I fear I have been misunderstood. My reference to discretion relates to the discretion to remove the totally pointless Neutral !Votes which are the subject of this thread. Such as number 3 in the current RfA. Leaky Caldron 19:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  I suppose that could be moved to the General comments section, but I'm not sure it's incredibly important. If there were something like a dozen "null" comments skewing the (S/O/N) tally (that raised the question "Why so many neutral?"), it could be a consideration but there's only 1 which I don't think has much of an effect. –xeno 19:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Placeholders would be annoying if they became too frequent. In small quantities, they might have a positive effect, e.g. as a reminder that it can be a virtue to take one's time before expressing an opinion on sensitive matters like an RfA. Checking out the contribs of a few of the placeholder placers, I don't agree the motivation is always egotistical. Sometimes its likely the opposite; they are just trying to be polite, signalling that they're giving fair attention to the candidate. That said, the most interesting question here is maybe Mr Z's point about whether placeholders are likely to add to the stress experienced by the candidate. On reflection, I think on average, they probably do. So support xaosflux's suggestion FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• I think the bigger problem, in many ways, are the assumptions as to why an editor appends such a placeholder !vote in the first place. Of those ascribing the motives likely at bear, I wonder if any have considered asking the editors beholding this practice why they do it? Like FeydHuxtable, I presume a benevolent intent, and have had occasion to message neutral !voters of an RfA's impending close if they have not indicated the finality of their !vote after giving such a placeholder notice. I agree, if consensus is that it should be dissuaded, that a gentle admonition in the instructions would be a good and well placed start.--John Cline (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have every confidence that the editors in question have good intentions; I was providing feedback on how placeholder statements can be perceived. When someone announces they will be doing something, there is an implicit assumption that others are interested in this future event. This may be true for some future commenters, but it's a practice that doesn't scale up well, so there's also an implicit message that the announcer feels there is a particular importance to their future comments, warranting a specific announcement. As I said, I think it's more trouble than it's worth to do anything about these announcements. A tweak to the instructions would be more than enough, and I might have done it if the template were not protected; I don't really want to get into a long back and forth about the wording first (admittedly I would be the one at fault, looking for ways to hone the text to be more concise). isaacl (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

    How's this for concision? Special:Diff/876664935 –xeno 18:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

    I was mulling over something less special-purpose, along the lines of "post a comment only after you have reviewed the candidate", but in the interest of minimizing time spent on this matter, your edit is fine. isaacl (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

    This is just a note that I am following this discussion, and will come back later to express my opinion. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Seriously, I think Xeno's edit is the right outcome. This isn't something that can be legislated in a binding way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

    Agreed. But also wonder if, for the avoidance of doubt, the word neutral could be added somewhere? Leaky Caldron 21:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

    Regardless of where it is placed, a note saying you'll comment later after reviewing the candidate is unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

    Precede it with:

    "Neutral" means genuinely neutral, not undecided or not yet decided;

    followed by the remainder of the text suggested above. Kablammo (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Pending an Answer - I think it makes a little more sense when it is placed as a conditional on an unanswered question - it has the effect of stressing that that question is a tie-breaker for at least a couple of participants. Obviously this might well be self-aggrandising if only ever done on a question you've posed, but I've seen 5 neutrals (or variants thereof) waiting for one particular answer before, which might discourage a blank leaving. That said, I can see some of the grumpiness points above. Nosebagbear (talk)
• 5 days is nuts - just wanted to clarify that there was one suggestion above to bar any neutral !votes before 5 days were up, since time was needed to judge. On that logic, we shouldn't allow anyone to make a !vote until 5 days were up. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Brilliant idea, much better than mine. Why not have a day or 2 or 5 where people ask questions, make points, express opinions, etc. but don't vote - AKA a debate. Then a day or 2 or 5 where people vote, perhaps adding brief explanations of why they did so. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Nigej: - touche, memo to self, be careful about leaving unchecked holes in my rebuttals Nosebagbear (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Sometimes one already knows to support or oppose, based on previous experience and interaction with the candidate. In those cases waiting a day or 2 or 5 may serve no useful purpose. · · · Peter Southwood : 20:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  I believe this idea was most recently discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 238#2 days discussion, 5 days voting (wow, doesn't feel like it was in 2015). As I mentioned then, if there is a desire to include those who edit once a week, then each phase will have to be at least a week long. While someone might feel they know the candidate well enough already, I think it is still useful to have a vetting phase so there can be a minimal baseline investigation of the candidate available when people starting expressing their support or oppose opinions. Some people say this format has been tried once, but that attempt was somewhat different, with an initial question phase without discussion or investigation. There wasn't a lot of popular support for a multi-phase RfA before (I believe the additional length worries some people, and others probably don't feel a strong need for it). isaacl (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  The modern RfA trend seems to be pretty consistent (I assume as an unintended side effect of the most recent reforms), and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed it: there's always a large onrush of supporters at the beginning, and it may take a day or two for legitimate opposition to develop (if it does). Once it does, it gradually builds on itself, often with supporters striking their support and moving to oppose, and the percentage progressively ticks downward until the RfA closes. This is potentially concerning, because people with legitimate reasons to oppose an RfA are disadvantaged by an initial onrush of thoughtless support. For that reason, I think it makes sense to discuss and vet candidates before voting opens. Then again, perhaps it's a good thing that it's harder to tank an RfA without strong arguments. Perhaps RfA should be tilted in favor of the candidates. We do desperately need more admins, and I would not want to see anything that makes it harder than it already is. The system is not perfect, but I think it roughly works.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  09:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  The "modern RfA trend" you describe is indeed quite noticeable (ignoring the two extremes 99% support/SNOW). To me it shows that there's some flaw in the current system. Perhaps it just shows that the opposers are waiting longer than the supporters to show their hand but there's clearly some sort of Bandwagon effect too. Nigej (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  That trend isn't actually quite as clear cut as it originally looked. This is because many of the admin candidates who saw this trend occurring withdrew around day 6. Those that carried on, and candidates who never went below 75% (but still saw significant opposition) actually had slight upturns on the final day - a "rallying" of support. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• But we should prompt - I just had a check through the last few standard close (non-SNOW/withdrawn) RfAs. There were non-removed placeholder neutrals in all of them. It would be worth a ping to each of these 24 hours before RfA close. This would be better to agree rather than just do on an ad hoc or it lays the pinger vulnerable to accusations of canvassing for whatever side they opted for. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Serious opposers take longer to show their hand because they do some serious research. That may be the reason why influential voters make a 'placeholder' neutral comment while they are doing their work. Apart from that, for better or for worse, RfA does what it says on the can, but it's still not a process that encourages candidates of the right calibre to come forward. That is due to the behaviour of the voters, nothing else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Um, "I've noticed a trend of RfA participants putting in neutral votes as placeholders" – It's not a trend, it's a normal practice that's been in use the entire time I've been on Misplaced Pages which is something like 13 years. This would probably be more apparent because back then we had multiple RfAs open most of the time. There is no rule against it and if the community wanted a rule against it we would have implemented one over a decade ago. It's perfectly fine for to people start getting involved in a RfA, with some questions and concerns unaddressed; the candidate, the nominators if any, and other RfA participants are often able to provide answers, and many neutrals don't stay there. "After all, a neutral vote does not affect the support percentage that is used to inform the final result of the RfA", and "We can certainly ignore them. Something that just said 'placeholder neutral' would by definition have to be effectively ignored by a closing Crat." – Exactly. This entire thread is busybody pot-stirring, a "there oughta be a law ..." urge to suppress a different approach that someone subjectively just doesn't like because it's not their approach. We have WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:CREEP for a reason; we do not need new wiki-regulations to "fix" things that are not actually broken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC); revised 02:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is becoming rather more common, and has always been a somewhat prattish thing to do, implying the community is on tenterhooks to see which way the individual will come down. AFAIK, it is generally not the "influential voters" (Kudpung above) who do it. Still too soon for a rule though. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Sorry, I didn't see your response until now. My intention here was never to create any kind of new rule or regulation or add to the bureaucracy of RfA. However, it's true that I do want to dissuade placeholder-voting by starting a conversation about it. It's not that I "subjectively" don't like it because it's not my approach – I genuinely believe it is a problematic approach. As you know, neutral votes in that past have brought up concerns which open the door to pile-on oppose votes. In that sense, neutral votes can and will be stressful to RfA candidates, so it is disheartening to seeing people voting neutral for apparently no reason at all. My hope is that linking to this discussion in the future will inform those that are considering entertaining a placeholder neutral vote that it is pretty thoroughly unnecessary. I suppose I don't want to force them to stop, but I do want to say, "I think they should stop." Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, It's not possible for one individual's random fence-sitting (in one of the only processes on WP that is actually a vote, with explicit pass/fail cutoffs, and in which people have notoriously variable and detailed criteria most of which require evidence examination not knee-jerk assumptions) to somehow represent the entire community being on tenterhooks. And if, as you say, "influential" participants don't do do placeholder neutrals, then I'm right back to my original comment: there is no actual problem to address here, since the practice has no effect.

Mz7, I'm not speaking to intent, but effects. We can see from where this discussion is going that people either don't care much, or they want to change the rules; there's not a lot of middle ground. I'm opposed to the latter. Discussions like this have a tendency to rapidly exceed the bounds of what the OP had in mind. >;-) That said, I really don't agree there's a reason to discourage temporary neutrality. Except perhaps meaningless temporary neutrality, with a comment that raises no questions or concerns. Everyone's neutral by default, so a post no more substantive than "Neutral for now." is just noise.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral - I haven't had a chance yet to read all of the above, but I'll likely do some research and get around to it sooner or later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I don't like neutral votes, but I don't feel it necessary to impose my will on those who feel differently than me.Jacona (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• How about "Please consider not !voting Neutral"? This allows a person to !vote "Neutral" but discourages it. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to revise my comment above to say that "This allows a person to !vote "Neutral" but asks them to think twice before doing so." Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is about neutral votes per se. I certainly have absolutely no problem with considered ones. As stated at the top, it is about "RfA participants putting in neutral votes as placeholders, before they've actually begun their review of the candidate. Usually something like "Neutral for now as I review the candidate"." Or Smallbone's witty one just above! Let's not drift off topic. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We are contemplating the implementation of an idea that lacks a clear definition. There is a generally agreed-upon idea that mere "placeholder" votes can be annoying. Therefore we merely want to suggest that judgement be exercised in voting "neutral". We can't be more specific than that. We want to leave open the leeway that allows for natural conversation. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting. I may comment later. (This post in my contribution history will help me remember and find this discussion which I intend to return to. It also acknowledges my attendance for any quorum issues.) —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think they do no harm. Don't worry about them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Still neutral. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that these neutrals are a waste of time for others, and we are better off without them, but they may have some benefit for the inserter, as they may put the page on their watchlist, and add an entry to the contribution history that will remind the neutral voter to make up their mind. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t see how the amount of time wasted on others part is non-negligible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• The time spent discussing something you won't change is just amazing. You must like talking to one another. Eschoryii (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep

Yep, sure ain't as many canderdates as used to be in deez here perts that's dern for sure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hooting song of tawny owl (Strix aluco).webm indeed Lectonar (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That there's some mighty fine owling in the night. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Whatcha complainin' bout? Succesful RfAs this year have seen a 300% increase over last year! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm afeard yer right, pardner. I musta had me too much o' that sarsaparilla. I'll stop my bellyachin'. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Are you trying to say that if you run for RfA you just might be a redneck? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Heck, only the good lord knows. But I ain't never been no redneck and I sure as shootin' ain't gonna become one na. Weez all just been talking like this o'er here recent-like, and I thinks were a drivin' each other crazy from it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I get it now...all admins are rednecks! Everything is clear now... hahahaha --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Now you understand the secret meaning of "rouge admin". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ah HA! I knew it! I just KNEW it! Do I get to be in the secret cabal now? What's the handshake? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• You'll need a boat. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Dang. It sank. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ick liebe die Idee een Berlina Rotnacken zu sein :). Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoever did the April Fools prank, I applaud you. bd2412 T 01:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the nature of bureaucrats' discretionary range for closing Requests for Adminship

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 policies and guidelines 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.

In future, should the discretionary range be understood primarily as A) a unit (bureaucrats should close Requests for Adminship based entirely or almost entirely on the strength of the arguments for supporting and opposing, and the raw percentage of supporters should not be a significant factor), or B) a spectrum (the strength of the arguments does matter, but the default expectation should be that RfAs with support near the upper end of the discretionary range are likely to pass and RfAs near the lower end are likely to fail)? Sideways713 (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Extended initial comment Tempers have got pretty heated after the controversial closure of RexxS's RfA. I understand that many editors would like a longer cooldown period before any Requests for Comment even tangentially related to the RexxS case, and equally that many editors on the other side might like to see a much more aggressive RfC than this, one that proposes drastic changes to the RfA process or openly questions the appropriateness of the RexxS close.
  So I fully expect to be pilloried by everybody on both sides; but I think it makes sense to have this RfC first and have it relatively quickly, because it's something we ought to have a consensus on before other RfCs about the discretionary range can really work. Arguments that will be very strong in future discussions if the discretionary range is a unit can be much weaker if there's consensus to treat the range as a spectrum, and vice versa; so if we don't know which it is, we'll just be talking at cross-purposes. Moreover, 1) the answer will be relevant in any future RfA that lands in a 'crat chat, and there's no guarantee that's a long time away; 2) the answer is fairly unlikely to be rendered irrelevant by future RfCs (only happens if the discretionary range is abolished altogether); 3) it is, hopefully, if not completely noninflammatory then at least less inflammatory than some other RfCs might be; so I hope we can work together, concentrate on policy and avoid relitigating RexxS's RfA.
  I appreciate that the answer isn't completely binary and that the discretionary zone has both unit and spectrum properties, but I believe it's worth determining which nature, unit or spectrum, editors think is or should be more important. Sideways713 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for opening the conversation, but I might suggest brainstorming a little more to refine the question being asked. It seems that either option you’ve presented would allow for an RFA with 64.1% support to be deemed successful, yet many of those critical of the outcome felt that the 65% threshold should be a hard-and-fast breakpoint beyond which none shall pass. –xeno 10:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I do realize there's an appetite for an RfC on the 65% threshold as a hard-and-fast breakpoint; but the strength of many arguments pro and con in that discussion will greatly depend on whether the range is seen as a spectrum or a unit, so I think that's something we should clarify first. Sideways713 (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing forward this RFC. I think we should strike while the iron is hot. I also agree that the scope of the RFC should be refined. Also, for at least the initial stage, the existing 'crats. should avoid participation, so that the community view as opposed to the 'crats view is clearly refined. They can contribute if asked and in any case later. It is my already clearly stated view that it is the 'crats themselves who created this mess and need to be accountable for it. Having said that I expect most who think the 'crats made perfectly the correct decision re Rexx will not agree and that is the difficulty - people will not agree to change something that suits their personal position. On the specific topic of the so called discretionary range - 65-75% is an 11% space for the exercise of discretion. That can be at the discretion of a 'Crat acting alone or as a collective. The introduction of a further zone of doubt below 65% is highly dubious alchemy. The community specifically rejected 60% - 65%. That embraces 64.1%. Simply put, the arithmetic boundary has to start somewhere. This is entirely consistent and since the 'crats have shown in successive cases to be incapable of consistent judgement it will help them at lot. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  If the RfA had ended (164/88/15) , would you still be contesting the result? –xeno 13:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think making some changes to Cratchat process rather than this more fuzzy 'how to look at it thing' might be better use of time, like majority of unrecused crats determining whether any !votes need to be stricken entirely; and a 75% of unrecused crats adopting a single reasoning statement when finding consensus. Throughout the pedia, editors working in small groups for consensus have to negotiate and find a a single way to say something and agreement on why they are saying it that way, all the time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC) (by stricken I generally mean given-0-weight, in case that's not clear - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC))
• Neither as you're presenting a false dichotomy between "the raw percentage of supporters should not be a significant factor" and "support near the upper end of the discretionary range are likely to pass and RfAs near the lower end are likely to fail". The reason we have crat discretion rather than straightforward votes is that not all voting is equal; in cases where the consensus isn't obvious, it's entirely legitimate that the closers consider whether those supporting/opposing are giving valid reasons for doing so, and that isn't immediately obvious. (There's a significant difference between "Support" without explanation and "Support per nom", for instance; while to take the specific RFA that prompted this, there's a world of difference between "Oppose. Don't like the guy" and the opposes who took the trouble to explain why they felt the candidate was unsuitable for adminship rather than just admitting they were expressing a personal grudge.)

  The raw numbers really aren't as significant as they're made out to be (personally I'd deprecate the ranges altogether and have the crats close purely on strength of argument); if we were to go down the mechanistic route of combining "all votes are considered equal" and "automatic pass/fail thresholds", it would be trivially easy to game any given RFA by flooding one section with sockpuppet votes two minutes before the RFA were due to close. ‑ Iridescent 11:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Well put. I think the current misconceptions might be problem of the current (2015) wording "in general". The previous wording "historically" was more useful to highlight the fact that these are merely examples of the boundaries at which RFAs usually have succeeded or failed, not a rule that any given RFA has to fail/succeed if the support is larger/smaller than these numbers. I outlined some of the history on my talk page which shows that throughout RFA history, the wording was always clear that ultimately, crats should decide whether a certain RFX fails or succeeds. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I especially like the wording that had been in use in 2009: At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion. Regards SoWhy 11:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I know all that, and the reason for much of my extended initial comment was precisely to avoid giving the impression of any false dichotomy like that. Sideways713 (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, Iridescent (I was surprised which way you went on this one, but I was watching all through hoping to be persuaded that a change had taken place from when I became aware of this person and started avoiding them), that strikes me as a ridiculous fear. RfAs are scrutinised from all sides for signs of socking, and insofar as they are not votes it's because participants engage with each other, and often change sides as they're persuaded by others' points or evidence. How the percentages shift during an RfA is indicative. (I used to see the crats using such trends to discern consensus, before they started citing "the need of the community" for more admins as an overriding principle as one has here. In short: maybe I'm an idiot or demonstrating my unsuitability for a life of crime. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• RfA does what it is supposed to. Nothing needs changing at all at this stage - RfAs have become such a rare phenomenon that they can all be taken on an individual basis without having to re-politicise the whole thing. Discretionary range or not, a closing 'crat is not obliged to call for a 'crat chat - that is also part of the bureaucrats' discretion. Like this extremely close call which might well have gone the other way if there had been a 'crat chat - which it probably should have, but nobody was prepared to make a hooha of the result so why should they be suddenly doing so now? Is it just for the want of yet more drama? IMO, people should be looking at what's wrong with the voter mentality instead of down the wrong end of the telescope, and try to make RfA a more inviting environment for any potential candidates of the right calibre who might be left. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised to see people piling on to complain about how bad this RfC is; but much of the opposition seems to be to something that the RfC was never intended to be about, which is unfortunate. If that is my fault for not being sufficiently clear in opening it, I apologize for that.
  I hope the explanatory figure helps make the point clearer. This RfC was not intended to be about eliminating or limiting bureaucratic discretion; it's to determine whether people think Fig. 1 or Fig. 2 more closely approximates the way the discretion range works or ought to work. I hope the difference between Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 makes clear why I think we need to be clear on that before any RfC about 65% as a hard limit. Sideways713 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a wording like "does a higher support percentage in an RfA mean bureaucrats have a stronger mandate to promote an admin?" would have worked better? That's essentially equivalent to the intended question - if the answer is "no", that creates as a natural by-product a probability curve that roughly approximates Fig. 1 or 3; and if the answer is "yes", that gives a result that roughly approximates Fig. 2 or 4. - but a wording like that would (hopefully) make it clearer why there's no false dichotomy with the right answer being neither yes or no. Sideways713 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You didn't read what I said above, Sideways713. There was no mention of the quality of this RfC, but there were some key words like 'drama'... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully acknowledged in my initial comment that many editors would like a longer cooldown period after the RexxS case before any RfC goes up; I take it that you are one of them. Equally, though, many editors do think this is an appropriate time for an RfC; and maybe a bit of extra drama now will save us from even more drama later. Sideways713 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What Kudpung said (and note that when it comes to RFA, I very rarely agree with him). The mechanism of RFA is that people explain why they feel the candidate should or shouldn't be trusted, and the crats assess which comments should be taken seriously and what the consensus is. Talk of "discretionary ranges" and "cutoff points" is a misunderstanding of the data, which was based on an analysis of likely outcomes at varying levels of support and never intended to be enforceable cutoff points. The issue affecting RFA ultimately stems from a mentality among some people that the job of participants is to look for reasons to oppose, rather than only opposing if they feel something genuinely precludes the candidate from being given the sysop bit; trying to impose hard limits or pass/fail cutoff points is never going to be the way to address this. It's not that we want a longer cooldown period after the RexxS case before any RfC goes up, it's that your RFC is based on an utterly false premise which you're repeatedly trying to present as fact despite the rest of us repeatedly explaining to you that it's not the case. ‑ Iridescent 13:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is not intended to impose a hard limit or a pass/fail cutoff point. Sideways713 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised by the Crats decision, not disappointed as I believe RexxS will make a good admin. But I was surprised, and if I were a crat and a comparable cratchat came up I would probably be in the no-consensus position. I'm concerned that if we were to hold an RFC now it would be too heavily influenced by the most recent RFA, there are other scenarios where a Crat might judge consensus as being outside the normal 56-75 zone. For example here is a fictional scenario: 24 hours before the normal end of the RFA the candidate makes a disclosure that sees support fall by 24% in 24 hours with the only activity supporters striking and moving to oppose. I would hope that a Crat looking at such a situation with support dropping from 100% to 76% in 24 hours would not feel that they had to close as successful, or even start a Crat chat or extend for further consideration. I would hope that a crat would read the consensus and close as lacking consensus to promote. Going back to the recent RFA, there were at least four reasons given for giving less weight to some opposes in that RFA. I think it would be good to give the crats some steer as to which if any of those reasons are acceptable to the community. I've mentioned extrapolating the trend, which doesn't particularly apply to the recent one and I doubt would be contentious. But other reasons for going beyond the discretionary zone include:

1. Being more lenient with longstanding members of the community. I don't agree with this, not least because the RFA !voting community is quite capable of doing this where appropriate, so no need for crats to give extra weight where the community chooses not to. I think an RFC could usefully clarify things for the crats on this.
2. Giving less weight to opposes over an issue where the candidate has given an assurance that the issue won't recur. In the past this has been more likely to sway the community on things like a signature that doesn't follow the rules or a default to minor edits that has resulted in many non minor edits being flagged as minor. It is fairly easy to interpret a situation where after the candidate responds such as by fixing the signature there are few or no further opposes over that issue and some existing opposes strike. Less easy where some opposers strike but some new ones oppose despite the reassurance.
3. Use of humour by the candidate or nominator. My own first RFA used too much humour for some of the RFA crowd, and I'm happy to see humour at RFA, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wants to pass, and I'm not convinced that Crats should discount Opposes from people who don't get or appreciate the joke.
4. Opposes without rationale. Personally I'm OK with such Opposes where there is already a substantial and unified Oppose section, though I'd recommend adding the words per above. Where there are two or more significant reasons being cited by Opposes then I'd prefer if Opposers said which of those reasons they agreed with. So I wouldn't have struck or discounted such Opposes in the recent RFA. But I would support discarding such votes if there are no Oppose rationales already there for them to be agreeing with. We give the typical Oppose close to twice the weight of the typical support, so while I'm happy to treat a support without a rationale as being per nom, I would be happy if an RFC reaffirmed that Opposers should do the courtesy of explaining why they oppose (there is also the practical matter that we need admins, and if people are turned down at RFA they need to know why if they are to be tempted to run again in the future).
5. Weak strong etc weightings to votes. I'd hope we are all OK with the idea that if someone marks their own vote as weak they are inviting the crats to give it less weight. I'm tempted to argue that less weight should also be given to people who try to up the impact of their own vote with prefixes such as strong, but I'm going to assume that an RFC would simply affirm that such verbiage be ignored. I doubt if the community would be at all bothered if the crats were to close a 63% RFA as successful because there were lots of votes marked as weak and they were almost all opposes. Or conversely if a 77% support RFA failed because many of the supporters had marked their !votes weak.
6. Something we have seen at RFA is when people !vote per another editor and that editor subsequently strikes their !vote and moves to another section. I think that in such circumstances we should have RFA clerks invite such editors to return to the RFA and possibly replace their rationale. But I can see this as an interesting one for crats, and there is an argument that if RFA is a discussion and at the end there are a couple of per user:example !votes when user:example has switched is difficult to see how one can give full weight to them.

Not all of the above have been seen in the last RFA, and that might be reason to wait a while before an RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Iridescent is right o the money and I'm afraid, Sideways713, that I don't really understand what you do want, and I'm not the stupidest of people when it comes to RfA reform. What I do see is that you didn't get the result you hoped for despite the drama you added to the RexxS RfA, and now you appear to be asking for solutions that are looking for a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• We get these 'emergency' or 'flood-of-bogus' scenarios that are really not in the least 'scary'. Not only crats but basically every other person would go, 'yep that's an emergency, handle it.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• I want a polite and constructive discussion on policy (as opposed to the RexxS case), giving us a clear answer to a question to which we do not currently seem to have a clear answer ("does or does not a higher support percentage give bureaucrats a stronger mandate to promote an administrator?"), so that future RfAs will create less drama than RexxS's did. If we get a consensus that the answer is "yes, it does", I will consider that a win for Misplaced Pages; and if we get a consensus that the answer is "no, it doesn't" I will consider that a win for Misplaced Pages also. Either way, future RfAs will cause at least a bit less drama, and future RfCs will have more to build on. If there's no discussion and no answer, that will only cause more drama further along the way. Sideways713 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sideways713 it's all to do with the RexxS case - because that's why you began this discussion. AFAICS, you were directly involved in some of the drama there so I fail to understand how you can be campaigning for less drama at RfA. Untill the voter community gets potty-trained, there will always be drama at RfA, And due to that, RfAs will take place in ever decreasing numbers., I urge you to read some of the links you've been given and familiarise yourself with the history of RfA ad its reform over the last 8 or 9 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• In principle I'm in favour of no hard cutoff at the high and low ends. But if a discussion is right at one of the extreme ends of the discretionary range, the bureaucrats should have extraordinary reasons for closing it the other way. Canvassing and sockpuppetry would be suitable grounds for chucking out a pile of oppose votes. "I don't agree that civility is a concern" is not. Reyk _YO! 14:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Reyk: Could you point out which of the bureaucrats in the discussion indicated they did not agree civility was a concern? –xeno 14:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  That's the impression I got from the fact that all the civility opposes were so severely devalued. I'f I'd meant for that to be taken as a direct quote, I'd have given a diff. Reyk _YO! 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  So you're putting forth a paraphrase (in quotation marks) that has no basis in the subject discussion, and has no adherents. I'm not sure where the impression that opposes on civility grounds were "thrown out" or "severely devalued" comes from. If a bureaucrat found consensus to promote, that doesn't mean they are ignoring the oppose section, simply that on the balance they found the discussion leaned towards promotion. –xeno 15:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Zeno, an example of where I personally got a similar impression that opposes were being "severely devalued" from was when you said "I’m also concerned there may have been somewhat of a pile-on effect with participants merely looking at the words used by the candidate without fully exploring the context and circumstances behind the comments." Well, yes... some participants expressing an "oppose" view may have merely looked at the words used by the candidate - neither you nor I have any no way of knowing. Equally, some participants expressing "support" may have been piling on as well, and may not have looked at the words used by the candidate at all - again, neither you nor I have any way of knowing! I know in my case, I read quite carefully around the various cases that came up, and I'm prepared to assume that other editors did so as well, including those who disagreed with me in the RFA. Even if you didn't mean it to be (!), I found it a bit insulting to be unilaterally told I may have been part of a pile-on effect, and therefore my view shouldn't carry as much weight. NB: I think an RfC at this point would be too soon, and feelings are running too high. Time for everyone to draw breath, think a bit, and come back to it in a few weeks. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Hm - I'm sorry that it came across that way - and my comment was not at all meant to disenfranchise those who opposed the candidate on civility grounds. I wouldn't say those comments need to be "severely devalued" to come to my opinion, either. In my more active past (and certainly wherever I see it), I've advocated for bitten newcomers and feel strongly that they are one of our most valuable assets and did not take the civility concerns lightly. It may help if I explain how I come to an opinion when participating in a bureaucrat discussion: approach the RfA with an open mind and project's core principles in mind, after closely reviewing the submissions from the community, determine if, on the balance, the consensus is that the community would be better served by having another administrator, sometimes in spite of legitimate concerns noted in opposition. It's a balance scale, certainly more art that science, in trying to divine the community's will, and in the present case I found the balance in favour of consensus to promote. In my mind, the opposition advanced due to civility did not need to be "severely devalued", for the scale to remain on the side of promotion. I do my best to articulate my thoughts on how I come to my opinion in each bureaucrat discussion. I must be honest in my opinion, and others may disagree with my opinion, as is their prerogative. –xeno 17:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for replying Xeno, and, while I do think they were unfortunate, I equally don't imagine that you intended for your remarks to come across that way. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think DeltaQuad's claims that people were hypocrites and WP:POINTy was a bit of a stinky thing to say too. Reyk _YO! 16:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon - I think per WereSpielChequers above, there are some legitimate discussions to be had here, and the fact that I don't agree with all his observations is testimony to the fact that some thought is needed (e.g. (a) I would have seen consensus for RexxS promotion if I were a crat, and I say that as someone who sat out the RfA because I wasn't sure how to !vote. And (b) I think oppose !votes based on the jokey nature of the RfA should be given less weight, as to me they show a disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Although there are very often excellent reasons for opposing a candidate it is always going to be a hurtful action if you do. By default anyone with the basic level of experience and nous should pass, and opposes should be made for genuine reasons of thinking they'd make a bad admin, rather than just that you don't like their sense of humour.) But, with all due respect to the OP of this RfC, I think feelings are still running too high and, per Iridescent, I don't think the RfC is asking the questions that most need to be asked. I therefore suggest we wait a few months and then brainstorm some proper ideas with WereSpeilChequer's questions above as a starting point. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not participate in the RFA, and I would find entirely differently as I wrote on the the cratchat page, and I think that's either disrespectful or a misunderstanding of what the concern was around the 'humour issue', for lack of a better term. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Well you have your view and I have mine, that's fine I fully respect that. That's why it's a legitimate question for debate. My intention was not to insult those that cited the humour issue or even to say their opinion is wrong per se, just that for me, if you take into account the goals and pillars of Misplaced Pages, I personally think that is a poor reason to Oppose an adminship. Others feel differently and we can come to a consensus decision in the RFC. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I do think this is a question that needs to be asked eventually; it may not be the question people most want to see asked, but it's one that answers to those questions will depend on. Unfortunately it does look like feelings are still running too high for a policy discussion to be possible without it getting personalized; and this RfC has clearly strayed very far from its intended purpose. Sideways713 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

When an Arbcom member says this: "I feel strongly that this was a poor close by the crats, essentially supervoting away valid opposes because they were not convinced by them, while, as usual, being far laxer with the supports. It does look like excessive leniency for an "establishment" RfA candidate, and it is particularly grating that civility concerns were dismissed given mounting evidence that a hostile culture is stifling the project." there is every reason to examine what led to that and to resolve it. The 'crats are incapable of self-resolving so let the community do it. Speedily. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And what about the six or so arbitrators who feel and spoke differently? Looking at the nine arbitrators, there is a stronger consensus towards this being a good call by the 'crats than otherwise. Do you disagree? -- Avi (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Joe Roe was the only arbitrator to directly opine on the goodness or the badness of the close. Several arbitrators called it a good call by Maxim to open the chat in the first place, but without giving any views on whether the chat's actual outcome was good. Sideways713 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Avi, my reading of the declines is not so much an endorsement of a good/bad result and more as a statement that the specific actions were not within the purview of arbitration. — xaosflux 15:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• They made a decision within their remit and according to their procedures;
• In fact, I cannot see that even a first resort process is needing used: excepting the filing party, the community appears to be content that processes worked as designed in this case.
• As someone who participated in the 2015 RFC and provided the second support vote for lowing the discretionary range, I believe the bureaucrats acted in accordance with the instructions provided to them by the community.
• Closing RfAs is up to the bureaucrats, and I think it was a good call on their part to get wide input on the closure amongst themselves.…It would be an overstep for us to revisit the 'crats decision, which I think shows no sign of improper behavior that would justify our involvement.
• Not going to set some precedent of running here if a discretionary call ends the way someone doesn't like.

The point being that while the close was not, and would never be universally approved, it was neither outside the burecrat remit nor some other violation. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if anyone who is going to advance the claim that bureaucrats are "supervoting" to head over to Misplaced Pages:Supervote include definitions on what constitutes a bureaucrat supervote and provide examples. –xeno 15:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have any historical insight on why I keep seeing RexxS called an "establishment candidate"? 1, 2, 3, to name a few. I'd never even heard of the guy until the 'crat chat, but I've been semi-active (to really stretch the definition of that word) for a number of years. Has he served in various Misplaced Pages capacities in the past that I'm unaware of? This is not supposed to be a knock on RexxS, I apologize if it came across that way. I also never heard of User:Joe Roe who is the ArbCom member that said the quote above, so it's nothing personal against RexxS. It's my own lack of recent activity, that's all. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an unsubstantiated claim that RexxS is an "establishment candidate" (whatever that means in this context) whom the bureaucrats wanted to appoint as an administrator. Those of we bureaucrats who did want him as an admin, such as me, supported him in the RfA and recused from the close accordingly. Anything to the contrary starts to descend into the tin-foil hat-wearing zone. Acalamari 16:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I can think of four reasons why people may consider RexxS an "establishment" candidate. He has been active on Misplaced Pages for a very long time. He has been involved in the UK chapter for many years, he has been involved in outreach for many years and he is involved in WikiMed. The UK link is particularly strong, looking at the supports and opposes I spotted a dozen people who I know are in the UK, and only one was an oppose. Misplaced Pages is big, I can't remember many on Wiki interactions that I have had with him, I know him largely from meetups and editathons in the UK. ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Neither – I feel the question is too narrowly-focused and we would benefit from a broader conversation about RfA reform and community de-sysop before any specific proposals are made. I've started a thread with one idea at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#RfA reform: straight vote?. Leviv ich 16:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think what is meant by a 'establishment candidate' is that RexxS has been around for a long time, has been highly active in areas that are not reflected in his edit count on-Wiki, and is certainly of an age and maturity where he doesn't 'need' the mop on his CV or to brag about in the schoolyard.

On another note, WereSpielChequers and I have been heavily discussing RfA on and off, on- and off-Wiki, for a decade and we mostly agree on most things. I'm not so keen on his #4, but #5 and #6 are important - especially #6. Overall though, on the hundreds of RfA I've participated on, the community has usually reached (rightly or wrongly - and more often right than wrong) a clear outcome; where the decision has been left to the 'crats, there has only been, IMHO, one outcome which I disagreed with. It was an extremely knife-edge but very polite RfA on which a single 'crat extracted a consensus where a 'crat chat would certainly have been a much safer option. What I'm saying is however, that where I was very disenchanted with the outcome, I didn't make a song and dance about it and didn't call for RfCs to get the votes more closely examined or cut-off values renegotiated.

To suggest that the 'crats are , or have been guilty of supervoting would be highly infelicitous. RfA nevertheless remains to this day the one venue where editors can rejoice at being drama mongers and as nasty as they like with almost total impunity. That's where reform is needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to knock the OP for opening a discussion in good faith, but I think the discomfort myself and presumably several others felt about the outcome here is because of a more fundamental problem that this does not address. Essentially, we as a community have decided that consensus is always based on the strength of arguments, not on the numbers favoring each argument (the one exception that proves this rule are the ARBCOM elections). However, even with such analysis, outcomes of discussions are not clear; there is a continuum of outcomes from "unanimity in favor of (X)" to "unanimity against (X)", and encompassing everything in between. RFAs usually fall somewhere along the continuum, and so of necessity we need some sort of threshold to turn a continuum of outcomes into a pass/fail. While acknowledging that this threshold cannot be numerical, it is also obvious that this threshold should broadly be consistent, otherwise the process is meaningless. In this case, I felt it not to be; or to put it another way, if the outcome here was okay, then Jbhunley got a really raw deal, and that's extremely unfortunate for many reasons. It's unfair to him personally, it's unfair to the community as a whole because we've been deprived of the services of an extra admin, and it's doubly unfair to the community because it makes RFA (already seen as an extremely unpleasant process) also appear capricious. Both these RFAs are now closed, but we need to be discussing how to find this balance between basing consensus on the strength of arguments while also keeping it reasonably consistent. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I supported both JBHunley and RexxS, but having just revisited the earlier RFA I don't see them as similar other than in raw numbers, and raw numbers are not the whole issue here. You could conclude that the crats were taking the reasons cited for opposing JBHunley slightly more seriously than they took the reasons for opposing RexxS. Or that they gave greater latitude to a WikiMed person who had been here 11 years over an editor who had been here 6 years. Or that one got cut some slack for commitments made during the RFA. The truth is that both were close, both could have gone either way, and the crats have to make a binary choice when there is clearly a close call. ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: While I agree the two were not identical, my comment wasn't just about the numbers (broadly similar, slightly more support for JBH) but about the nature of the opposition, and more specifically about the applicability of some of the crat comments in the Rexxs crat-chat to Jbh's RFA, and vice-versa. While I supported both, I recognize that they were both judgement calls. My complaint, though, is that the reasons to give less weight to the opposition to RexxS also applied broadly to Jbh. I'm particularly concerned by the comments of WJBscribe and Nihonjoe, who supported promotion in the latter case but not the former; and I'm concerned because AFAICS, their analyses in each case could be applied in its entirety to the other discussion. At the moment it's unclear if this result was because the crats are hearing community feedback about RFA having too many overly-demanding naysayers, or whether it's stochastic variability. If it's the former, that's great; if it's the latter, we need to talk about making it less variable. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Quoting WJBscribe "The Opposition is largely concentrated on one issue in relation to which limited evidence is presented despite the candidate being a longstanding contributor." I see those as three arguments two of which are radically different between these two RFAs. The RFA that failed had two major arguments in the Oppose section and an editor who had been here six years rather than 11. I'm not sure that I agree with WJBscribe on either of those, I don't see a case for cutting extra slack for our longest serving editors. As for whether the argument in the Oppose section has focused on one argument or not, I could put the other case, there were two main arguments for declining the other RFA, but if they had been voted on separately it is likely that over 75% thought that the candidates contributions were sufficient for RFA and a not quite overlapping 75% thought that their behaviour was acceptable. I'm not sure if I agree that a united Oppose section should be given less weight than a divided one, but I would agree that on those two criteria those two close calls go in opposite directions. ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts pretty much mirror those of WereSpielChequers, who phrased them much better than I would have. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it was. In fact your change of course, as it happens from one favorite to another, was especially poorly explained. Looks like you just wanted to go with the mood shift. I mean, repeating something is "a hard one" doesn't really explain your rationale, does it? Leaky caldron (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: Thank you for the backhanded compliment, Leaky. It was a "hard one" because I was pretty much on the fence with it, and could have gone either way. Initially, I decided one way. After reviewing the comments made by a number of the other 'crats, I decided I agreed with the reasoning they gave, and so I changed my opinion. There's nothing nefarious here, despite what you may think. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't participate in RexxS' RFC (because I didn't know it was happening) and I've not read the Crat Char or almost all the subsequent drama, however I am firmly against numerical cutoffs, strong or weak. Every RFA should be assessed on the strength of the arguments presented - two dozen !votes based on a subsequently-clarified misunderstanding are worth much less than a single !vote that is based on things everyone agrees are accurate (even if they disagree on whether they are good or bad). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• I appreciate the good faith of opening this discussion and I have nothing negative to say about it having been opened, so thanks. In one sense, yes, I do think that the higher the support percentage, the stronger the rationale for closing as successful, and that trend applies pretty much across the entire range of results and not just in the discretionary zone. But in another sense, I feel strongly that, per WP:VOTE, the numbers just do not matter that much and no numerical cut-off should be regarded as binding. (The example given earlier, of an RfA in which new information comes forth late in the process, is a good example.) It's intentionally hard to pass RfB, so crats are entrusted by the community to use discretion, and they should be able to do so. I also think that there is a logical flaw in arguments that there could be a problem because there was one crat chat where the decision was to promote, and another with a very similar percentage where the result was no consensus. The logical flaw is the assumption that a given percentage always indicates the same thing about community consensus, and it's a flaw for the very reason that we have !votes rather than votes. Two different RfAs that both ended at 64% are not automatically equal in terms of how the discussions played out. And that is exactly what I do want the crats to evaluate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• I am not a statistician. I don't understand the question, and the diagrams don't help. But RfAs are now advertised with a notice that has had the desired effect of increasing participation. And the hard-argued RfCs on lowering the discretionary range established that the community wanted the discretionary range lowered to start at 65% and rejected lowering it to 60%. The job the bureaucrats swore they would do in their RfBs is to interpret consensus in the RfAs. A discretionary range is a discretionary range: outside it is not discretion, it's wilfully changing the result (and persuading someone to break a repeated promise doesn't make it better). RfA is enough of a popularity/influence contest already. Deprecate the bureaucrats' changing results that do not fall within the discretionary range. Whether they do it because they like someone or because they think having more admins is so imperative it doesn't matter if we get an abusive one is immaterial. Fit that into the RfC however you statistically literate people see fit. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• At last!! the DISCRETIONARY Range BEGINS at 65%. Below is outside Discretionary range - obvious, simple logic. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Then we're back to bean counting. In this case, after weighing the strength of the arguments, in my opinion, there were more than 65% weighted responses in favor. I'd say that Enwiki either says we have absolute hard and sharp boundaries at the bottom, or they trust the discretion and resoning of the 'crats. We've always had the latter, knowing that 30%+ of participants in an RfA may be annoyed. Switching to the former requires a site-wide RfC. -- Avi (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Forgive me Avi, this is not intended to be as critical as it sounds but are you being deliberately obtuse? You guys - 'crats - have a discretionary range of 11 percent in which to do your sums, play your games, pontificate, muse and opine. Why do you need more? The community expressly rejected less than 65% in an RFC. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Will you stop? They're fulfilling their roles as bureaucrats. If we wanted someone to just total up a numeric percentage, bots already do that. Natureium (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• That's going too far. Reyk _YO! 18:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I hope he/she doesn't stop. "Bean counting" = respecting what the voters say. We are only too aware of your opinion, Avraham. It's that the RfA was an unnecessary formality because you and your friend crats know better. I'm coming to be ashamed that one of you once promoted me. This was not discerning consensus, and you can't be trusted to do so any more. Let us vote and stay out of it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Me too. As I said on BN, it seems like the crats used their discretion to ignore votes related to the process to bring the percentage up to 65%, then ignored the other oppose votes by closing the request as successful. By the current consensus, 65% should be the minimum, after which crats can engage in their arbitrary reasoning at the crat chats. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Question are the outcomes of RFCs exempt from WP:IAR? Asking for a friend... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Bureaucrats don't need to invoke IAR. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Is that indoctrinated in policy, or just your opinion? Asking for a friend... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I might be wrong, it has been known :), that the convention when resorting to IAR is to quote WP:IAR in the rationale for whatever the IAR is being used. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure if IAR is a reasonable explanation here, or not, but the point is, if IAR is a policy, and 'crats aren't forbidden from using such policy, then all this bluster over 65% and discretionary ranges etc, is a complete and utter waste of time. Either get consensus that 'crats can't IAR or move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
          • To belabour the point, the crats have demonstrated that they consider their opinion to be the rule, and hence have no need for that nicety. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
            • What you mean is, the 'crats, like Arbcom, have exercised their own judgement, even if the community don't agree with it? Is that what you're belabouring? If IAR is something that can't be applied to 'crats and Arbcom, we should be told, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Based on the principle behind IAR, I don't understand why it shouldn't apply to crats.Natureium (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Because they promise at RfB to merely discern consensus. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • Ah, so "discern consensus" means they are not allowed to IAR? Could you be clear here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• This RfC question is so badly worded that I can't even respond to it. It actually seems like you don't even understand what the issue is. The discretionary range is a general rule that is almost always followed, with strength of arguments factored in according to policy considerations and common sense, just like any other discussion. I don't think anyone disputes that. The actual question is whether 'crats can judge a 64% scenario to be in the discretionary range by disqualifying illegitimate opposes. That's what happened. That's the controversy. After discounted opposes, RexxS' RfA would be in the discretionary range, so they passed an RfC that did not even hit the minimum percentage. Some users feel that regardless of the merits of the opposition, the vote count is the vote count, and being outside of the discretionary range is be a quick-fail. This RfC does nothing to resolve this actual issue. ~Swarm~ 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (I think you mean an RfA). That's not what I saw happen. One of them opened a crat chat because participants disagreed in the RfA (shock, horror). Several crats then decided to discount opposes by "weighting" and based on disagreement on the major issue raised. They persuaded the candidate to rescind his withdrawal. They persuaded at least one of their fellow crats to fall in line. They were determined to change the result, and did so. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think that's gross assumption of bad faith. I suspect, given that I trust most of our 'crats a damn sight more than the Arbcom, that they saw a corner case and needed to act on it responsibly and in keeping with their ability to do more than just divide one number by the sum of two numbers. All this "persuasion" and "determination" that's being perceived in my opinion is hysteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I hope I'm right in seeing bad faith here, because otherwise they're idiots. Don't let's bring Arbcom into it, one set of powerful people telling common editors their concerns don't matter is enough for this week. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Once again, you're not answering the question. And yes, it's important to include Arbcom here. Are 'crats (like admins, and it would seem Arbcom) allowed to IAR, or are 'crats the only subset of the Misplaced Pages editing community which are precluded from exercising such a policy? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Michael Howard and yes they are. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Did you order the code red? Yes, 'crats are allowed to invoke IAR because it's policy and everyone here is bound by policy. So this is a pointless exercise. If, however, someone wants to start an RFC which says "below 65% support, no-one may even invoke IAR", then you have your RFC. Right now, this is yet another timesink. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I totally agree. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Another historical question. When Biblioworm made the edit summarizing the 2015 RFC, did anybody voice any concern with the wording? I scoured the related talk pages and archives looking for anyone lodging a complaint about the wording, but couldn't find anything. The closest I found was a short conversation that took place in August 2018 here, which wasn't about the 2015 change at all, but about a small 2018 change that ended up getting reverted. Does anyone know of any conversations that took place shortly after the 2015 RFC regarding how the results were codified and summarized by Biblioworm? Or is this the first instance? Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• B? This is a very weird RfC question. In general, my guess is that the likelihood the bureacrats see consensus to promote scales with the actual vote tally. This isn't so much a policy or unspoken practice as it is common sense. More votes in support = higher probability the community came to consensus to promote. That said, figuring out current practice is hard since very few RfAs close at or near the discretionary range. By my count at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship_by_year, since December 2015 there have just 9 that ended up within a couple points of the range. Pbsouthwood (77%) and Oshwah (75%) closed as consensus to promote without a 'crat chat. Jbhunley (70%), Godsy (68%), and Hawkeye7 (67%) were closed as no consensus following 'crat chat. GoldenRing (67%) was closed as consensus to promote following 'crat chat. Between 60 and 65% the only closes we've had are Philafrenzy (64%) closed as no consensus with no 'crat chat, and RexxS (64%) closed as consensus to promote after 'crat chat. If you chart those, you'll find a mess. In general, I'd say the 'crats rarely find consensus to promote when the vote tally is under 75%. In some rare cases, they judge that there is consensus to promote. Put another way, the expansion of the discretionary zone in 2015 has changed the result of at most 2 RfAs. I don't think the answer to this RfC would further change RfA outcomes, so I'm not totally clear on its purpose. Some folks obviously feel that there should be a hard numerical cutoff under which 'crats should not consider promotion. If you feel that way, perhaps start an RfC on that instead. Ajpolino (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• This is what was actually passed according to the closer, Neonjoe, by a supermajority. At the same time reducing the lower edge to 60% was firmly rejected . 64.1% lands below 65% - there is no fuzzy margin here. The added verbiage was added outside of this supermajority decision. Wrongly. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I feel like you're replying to my question with your response, but it isn't actually answering the question. I do not and will not get into philosophical discussions. My question remains (and is not directed at you, but at anyone who might know): Does anyone know if Biblioworm's edit in December 2015 was made without incident until now or was there prior discussion about the wording? Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Did that RFC state that 'crats could not IAR nor could they dismiss objections (e.g. "I don't like the guy") which clearly fall outside the normal expectations? Just asking, because all this bluster about 65% etc is fine, but once again, we're just dancing around the edges of whether or not 'crats are entitled to act with IAR in boundary conditions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I commend Sideways713 for attempting to clarify this issue. RfA has always benefited from and been plagued by the vague nature of voting/!voting. The RfA from which this RfC came forward is simply the latest iteration of many. This RfC can't and won't clarify this. For all its hideous ugliness, the system is working as intended. For those that are gravely concerned about the outcome of Rexx's RfA; be aware that RfA is an absolutely horrible predictor of whether an admin will fail and lose their bit. The last 10 admins who lost their bit for cause passed RfA with a combined tally of 928/52/29. The community expressed an enormous amount of confidence in those 10 former admins, only for them to subsequently lose their bit for cause. Rexx's RfA is not a predictor one way or another whether he will succeed as an admin. This, too, shall pass and we will continue as we have been. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Wow, recentism works, or is it just lies, damned lies, and statistics? I was elected second time round to admin 128/0/0. Then look what happened. And even to 'crat a couple of years later. I would take the preceding comment with a pinch of salt. I have little doubt that RexxS will do good things with the bit, especially in light of all this unnecessary heat (which, incidentally, should not be any reflection at all on him). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  And then I would take my own comment with a pinch of salt. Hammersoft nailed it (is that allowed?). The final sentence was spot on, to whit: This, too, shall pass and we will continue as we have been., my apologies to Hammersoft for spending too much time watching The Victim on the iPlayer while editing... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hahahah! TRM, you are the first person to ever (even if unintentionally) make that play on words. Bravo sir, bravo :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• The last RFC expanded the discretionary range, I don't believe that it made it more rigid as it would have done if the proposal had been to change the wording such as from "below the range will normally fail" to "below the range will always fail". What I do wonder is whether we have now moved de facto into an era where adminship is such a big deal that all close calls have to go to crat chats. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I believe what is being sought here is hard and fast. (a) above 75% - promote (b) between 65% and 75% - chat (c) below 65% - fail. And this means completely ignoring the substance of the votes being cast. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly. Bureaucrats are appointed to assess substance of comments made. If the community wants to go off percentages only, then the only way I can think of it working is making RFA like ArbCom elections, with established users only and hidden voting. Aiken D 20:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, at which point we might as well remove the position of 'crat from Misplaced Pages altogether as it's only really nowadays serving a middleware purpose of promotion to adminship. Let's just hand that off to Arbcom and actually get them to do something useful and timely. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Just FYI:The last RfC also rejected discretionary ranges below 65 . Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  But the 'crats HAVE a 65%-75% range in which to use discretion. The arithmetic has to start somewhere. 65%. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  @the Rambling man I'm aware that there are several people on this page who want to make such a change, and even who think that this is the current policy and that the Crats have breached it. There are also people such as myself who are uncomfortable changing RFA to a rigid discretionary zone. Just to repeat the hypothetical that I gave earlier, on the seventh day of an RFA Support slides from 100% to 76% as a series of supporters shift to oppose. Currently a sensible crat would close such an RFA as a failure. Is there anyone who wants such a rigid discretionary range that a crat should close such an RFa as successful? ϢereSpielChequers 21:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Your description of a 100% -> 76% slide (or more importantly, a 74% or even 64% slide) is why we vote for and enable our 'crats to make hard decisions. I trust them. I don't trust Arbcom at all, but 'crats are worthy. They perform their duties openly and honestly, are elected openly and honestly, and sometimes have to call it, and this time they did. It's not a problem, and IAR exists for this very reason. Once again, if someone wishes to revoke 'crats' ability to act subjectively based on their assessment of various opposes (e.g. "I don't like the guy" for god's sake), then make that the RFC. Or if someone thinks IAR doesn't apply to this dozen or so of the millions of us, then make that the RFC. Meantime, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I clarify with those opposed to the 65% minima - what does 65% mean? Leaky caldron (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

65% is merely a number derived from two other numbers which happen to be based on a subset of editors who chose to preface their comments with a #. To set the system such that candidates who fall even slightly below 65% automatically fail, without any regard to the actual comments behind those #’d remarks would be to allow form to triumph over substance, and I do not think this is what the community wants from bureaucrats. Since we disagree on this very fundamental aspect, until an RFC answers that question in your favour or mine, I don’t think we can come to any kind of mutual understanding, unfortunately. –xeno 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In other words, what I said below about half an hour ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think it means that you add up all the supports (A) and then add up all total votes (B), divide (A) by (B) and if it's 0.6500000 or above, you are allowed to be "discretionary" and below 0.6500000 you must fail and you (i.e. the assessing 'crat) must not pay any attention whatsoever to the substance of any of the votes, all must be treated equally, like a secret vote, like we do for "Arbcom". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I answered your question regarding IAR fairly. I would appreciate your interpretation please. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I just gave you my interpretation. What are you looking for? The community seem to need a minimum below which they cannot trust 'crats to make a decision. 65% apparently seems to be the current minimum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  In which case I am sorry that I have misinterpreted your previous remarks as being opposed to that. I am hoping to gain an understanding from those opposed to 65% minimum what they believe 65% means and you responded under that heading. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Ah yeah, well I'm neither in favour of, or opposed to a 65% minimum. I think it's nonsense. Any numerical answer which simply relies on 'crats dividing (A) by (B) renders their role lower than a lowly Arbcom clerk. Anyone can tweak numbers, be told to refactor or redact something, divide two numbers and check it's above 0.65. Is that really what we have 'crats for these days? I'm glad there's a growing consensus against there being any issue here whatsoever, but if this ever got more traction to suggesting that 'crats overstepped their bailiwick, then I'd immediately opt to eliminate 'crat as a position now they're not needed for renames, and if judging borderline RFAs is gone too, what's the point? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Is a 65% - 75% borderline not sufficient though? Does it have to be a Donald Trump sized border to police? Leaky caldron (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see the point in a borderline at all. The 65%-75% you describe is purely numerical, so it includes votes like "I don't like the guy" (wow, I mean, WOW). Should we be doing that? I don't think so. I think 'crats should be given the latitude to completely ignore such ridiculous votes, and if you can find a consensus that says we shouldn't allow 'crats to do that, I'd be surprised. So immediately, the % argument starts to lose its way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Leaky caldron (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see anywhere in either of those links where it says that 'crats can't discount blatantly disruptive votes like "I don't like the guy" and hence I don't see anywhere in either of those links where 'crats can't make subjective decisions over what constitutes a reasonable vote, and hence I don't see anywhere in either of those links where 'crats shouldn't be enabled to do what most of us voted for them to do, make important decisions without resorting to bean counting. And even then, if necessary, IAR. Numerical accuracy is perverse here when you have clearly disruptive voting tactics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe they should have said which votes they were discounting in order to arrive at the 65% to begin their discretion consideration? Leaky caldron (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe, and then of course every user whose vote was discounted would be up in arms, and it would become a never-ending story, hence perhaps we should vote for admins like we do our "Arbs". And leave it to someone else to do the vote counting and announcements. All in secret. And as I noted, that way we could get rid of the 'crat position entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  every user whose vote was discounted would be up in arms- you say that like it's a bad thing. If someone participates in a process in good faith, and then their opinion gets chucked on the trash heap, I think they're justified in wondering why. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Well, the one example I gave thus far was "Oppose - I don't like the guy", so that's a prime candidate for being "chucked on the trash heap". Time to start getting real here, and avoid pandering to those who are clearly not engaged in the process of electing someone to admin. If someone is prepared to give a suitable reason for oppose or support, than we should trust our 'crats to take those votes into consideration. Votes based on whether you like someone should be thrown out and the voter should be banned from future voting as disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'm no fan of trollish opposes in RfA's either. I've often objected when candidates are opposed for such extreme felonies as not being a native English speaker (though fluent), or being a fan of a particular author, or of editing articles that some people don't find interesting. Yet people tell me I need to respect those opposes. Which is why I'm annoyed when actual good faith opinions then get tossed in the garbage. BTW, your example of "I just don't like the guy" is a horrible example because Softlavender followed it up with a measured reply in response. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  No, it's far from horrible because it's an exemplar of the kinds of votes that 'crats have to work with all the time, and in close-run cases, they need to exercise judgement which is why they were elected in the first place. Simply put, if we want RFA to work purely numerically, then say so. If we want 'crats to work purely within the 65% to 75% range after the pure numerical closure had happened, then say so. If we want 'crats to reject anything below precisely 65% from the pure numerical closure, then say so. If we want 'crats to be disallowed any latitude on interpreting the validity of votes, then say so. If 'crats are not allowed to exercise IAR, then say so. Right now, I'm not hearing any real solutions, just a lot of bitching about one instance where a few people appear to be "butt-hurt about the situation" (to use a US vernacular). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  RfA does not follow the patterns we normally use when judging consensus. The supports are invariably variations on "I think this editor would make a suitable admin, and the opposes are insufficient to convince me otherwise". The opposes are generally more colourful, often detailing grudges and grievances, with the occasional "we have too many admins already" and "I couldn't vote for someone who urinates in the sink". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree there's a hint of false dichotomy, but logically it has to lean toward the "unit" side. It can't really be that 'Crats are bound to almost always pass someone near the top of the discretionary range, and almost always fail those lower in it, or it is not in fact a discretionary range, but a pretense of one, and we have no use for fake process that creates a bureaucratic layer "just to have one". It has to actually serve a function, and the specified function is for 'Crats to carefully examine the arguments presented. We already know the numbers are iffy, because it ended up in the discretionary range at all. So, making the 'Cratchat outcome dependent on any kind of numeric approach defeats the entire purpose of remanding the candidacy to a 'Cratchat in the first place. But of course the 'Crats are not robots and will of course take numeric support into account as they're going over the RfA, so it is a factor and will remain one (that's the false dichotomy part).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• My thoughts are to decline to engage directly with Sideways713's question as proceeding from a false premise. I can see why Sideways713 is taking the approach chosen here and recognise that it is being done in good faith, but trying to define and then mathematically describe the nature of the discretionary zone proceeds from a premise that the decision being taken is one capable of precise modelling – and that is false. The same fallacy is seen in a focus on specific values of the S / (S + O) ratio.
  The purpose of RfA is to determine whether there is a consensus amongst community members who choose to participate to grant access to the sysop tools. It is not about winning or losing a prize, nor about filing a fixed number of positions with editors whose views you favour, it is not about governance or politics or popularity. Now, it is true that !vote counting can provide information on which to decide whether consensus exists, but that is all it is – a tool used to provide a means that assists in making a decision. In many cases, the result of such a calculation makes consensus clear and a single 'crat makes the call on consensus and close the RfA accordingly. In others, the presence or absence of consensus is unclear and a 'crat chat is held. We as a community held an RfC some years ago to modify the "discretionary zone", which I see as another tool to assist 'crats in deciding the result. Our discussion showed that there was a majority view that standard practice at RfA at that time was adopting a threshhold for consensus that was inaccurately reflecting community views, and we asked / directed the 'crats to lower the threshhold and gave guidance as to how this should be applied. To me, the idea that that RfC dictated to 'crats that they must find consensus at and above 75% support, must find no consensus between 75% and 65%, and must find no consensus or consensus against when below 65%, is an interpretation inconsistent with the nature of the decision and instead reflects the faulty premise that I mentioned above. It implies that the RfC changed the decision from being about consensus to having a narrow range for considering the strength of arguments sitting inside a broad range where only !vote counting mattered. I do not accept that as an accurate view of what happened.
  I have no problem with the 'crats having a 'crat chat on a 77% support case, and even finding no consensus so long as the reasoning shows an honest and reasonable evaluation of consensus. I have disagreed with the outcomes of 'crat chats before and there have certainly been cases where my opinion differed from that of some 'crats or of the 'crat consensus. However, I can't recall one where I viewed the conclusion as objectively unreasonable / unsupportable and where I thought the actions had gone beyond the limits of the discretion they are granted to carry out their duties. It would only be if that happened that we'd need to act on a policy level, or through RfAr to remove individual 'crats. I am glad the 'crats concluded as they did, but much more important, I am grateful that they took their duty seriously, carefully examined the discussion, and offered their views and reasoning for all to see. We may disagree with some comments, but I think we should be respecting the collective decision reached after a serious and mutually respectful discussion that itself demonstrated the emergence of consensus.
  I understand that some editors feel RexxS is not suited to being an administrator and are disappointed that others have disagreed. I understand that the outcome reached is not the one that follows from strict !vote counting... but that has never been the basis for judging consensus at RfA. But, please, consider whether attempting to change the nature of RfA is something you really want, reflect on whether 'crats as judges of consensus have done anything worse than come to conclusion about which you disagree, and ask what there is to gain from these discussions. If you truly believe that one or more 'crats, or even the 'crat group as a whole, have so violated their obligations and granted boundaries of discretion that they are unfit for the role, you can take it up with them directly or with ArbCom and seek sanctions... but before doing that, ask if that is truly what you think. Disagreeing is not a wikicrime, it's a part of a healthy community and productive discussions and debate. Deliberately abusing discretion is a wikicrime – and in this case it's a charge that logically would apply to at least seven 'crats, or more if you see even having / participating in the 'crat chat as a betrayal – but I struggle to see how that view can be sustained. Finally, give some thought to RexxS, who didn't ask for this controversy and must be feeling stressed by all that's going on. At least, let's try to allow him the space that all new admins need to grow into their new role and its responsibilities. EdChem (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrally-stated Summary

The discussions have been all over the place (literally on various pages and topically splintering into tangents), making it somewhat convoluted. I went through it and made a list of all the questions and concerns I came across. There could certainly be more (and others could arise in the future), so feel free to add to the list. I am not commenting on any of these, nor am I stating that I condone or condemn any of these questions or their (potential) answers. I'm merely listing them for the sake of clarity. I tried to phrase each concern as neutrally as possible, phrased as a yes/no question. They are also in no particular order.

1. Should April Fool's festivities be banned from RFA areas?
2. Should April Fool's festivities be banned from the site as a whole?
3. Is the discretionary zone bounds of the 2015 RFC a hard 65%-75% or fuzzy?
4. Do the bureaucrats have the ability to IAR when it comes to the discretionary zone boundaries?
5. Was the discretionary zone fuzzy before the 2015 RFC? If so, was it still fuzzy afterwards?
6. Was it within the bureaucrat's remit to open a 'crat chat for RexxS' RFA?
7. Did any or all of the bureaucrats participating in the aforementioned 'crat chat act in bad faith, COI, etc?
8. Did any or all of the bureaucrats participating in the aforementioned 'crat chat use discretion in a substandard way or explain their discretion in a substandard way?
9. Should bureaucrats be more explicit in which !votes are given full weight and which ones are not and why?
10. Was the RexxS 'crat chat, or any portion of it, a supervote?
11. Is more leniency provided for longer-tenured candidates?
12. Can RFAs or 'crat chats be compared? Is precedence a factor?

I don't know if that helps provide any clarity or not. Feel free to completely ignore. Useight (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Order of operations

So, I don't really want too get deep in to this dramafest right now - but here is something to consider: when "weighing" votes - I don't necessarily consider all votes to be equally weighted (as I clearly stated in my RfB). So when closing an RfA: in general I weigh out the votes and if it results in <65% I'm likely closing as unsuccessful, and if its >75% I'm likely closing as successful - in between requires more consideration, and possibly, but not necessarily, extra help (the 'crat chat). So to note here, I look at the weighing first, then the calculation. I certainly don't expect every 'crat to weigh every every discussion point the same as I do, so there certainly could be variance between crats here. The point of this is: weighing may be performed prior to percentage support determination by at least some of us crats. If the community would like a strict numerical cut off somewhere (computed prior to any weighing) then continue in the section above - if not, this order of operations may be what is confusing the causal observer. — xaosflux 23:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure about these tailing level three headings, but this follows the preceding post. Consensus is not about the numbers. Understandably, there was a curiosity about studying the RfA numbers and their correlation with whether the bureaucrats promoted. Unfortunately, this led to an obsession with numbers, and with time, the perception of the correlation with the numbers hardened, and now, for some, their is a belief in the numbers at the expense of consensus. Consensus is not about the numbers. It is about strengths of arguments, and whether some arguements eclipse others, and whether some arguments overcome others, and whether some arguments are more persuasive to others in the discussion. The recent RfC on shifting the discretionary zone should have been written differently, and should be interpreted as the community telling the bureaucrats that they should be passing more RfAs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • But there is still a percentage element to consensus. Unanimity is the ideal, which is 100%. 2 people have different views and they come to agreement and you have a consensus of 100%, if the two don't come to agreement you don't have a consensus, and they are at 50-50. (See also meeting of minds.) As you scale larger, it becomes harder to have agreement of all, so it becomes acceptable to expect less, but not down to 50% - 50% again, and 75 is between 100 and 50. (And the issue, here, of course, is an admin is an admin for 100% of us. Also, a discussion among 300 is, well, a bit imaginary). As I have said elsewhere, it would be good, if the cratchat modeled making consensus in a group, like explicit statement that an !vote is given 0 weight (say, by majority of crats), and a group statement of consensus that, say 75% of crats can agree too. All over the pedia, small groups of editors come to consensus on what to say, how to say, and why to say something, all the time. Overtime you would get a better informed !voting population, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

    Drawing the line at 75% would require 3-out-of-4 but also 4-out-of-5, 5/6, 6/7, 6/8, 7/9, 8/10, 9/11, 9/12, and so on. As practically applied to small groups of voters (like crats), it would require near-unanimity. It would be strange if five-out-of-seven or seven-out-of-ten people agreed on something, and yet that wasn't considered to be "consensus". Leviv ich 21:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

    So, 70%. But are you assuming, for say 10 people of similar interest and background to discuss something together and come to agreement is either impossible, or a miracle? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Alan, the percentage element of consensus is overblown. Unanimity is not consensus, unanimity is what happens when you have unanimity. If you have unanimity there is not need and no point talking about consensus. Consensus is about making a decision, taking into account disagreement. If there is no disagreement, the feature function of consensus is irrelevant. Counting numbers is about discounting a minority view based on numbers. Consensus is about considering more seriously the minority disagreeing view. Many Wikipedians have trouble with the concept of consensus, and try to substitute numbers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

    Partly right. Consensus is still agreement, if you have 100% agreement you have consensus. But, yes if you don't have 100% at the beginning, you work on the differences, until you come close enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

    100% right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

    All-right! Right-on! Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

New RfC: Limiting bureaucrat discretion

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

I haven't posted here in nearly three years. I hoped to never do so again. But with my 2015 reforms now front and center, we need to settle this. Get to the point and have a straight up-or-down RfC on bureaucrat discretion.

Question: Should the discretion of bureaucrats in Requests for Adminship be absolutely confined to the range between 65% and 75% (inclusive) raw support, with no exceptions and, for this sole purpose, notwithstanding any other Misplaced Pages principle, policy and/or guideline that might be interpreted as permitting otherwise?

If your answer to the above is "yes," support. If your answer is "no," oppose.

For supporters, also specify whether rounding is acceptable. Does anything from 64.50% to 64.99%, or anything from 75.01% to 75.49%, fall within the discretionary range?

Biblio (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. "Support" - because arithmetic must kick in somewhere and the community gave the 'crats a 10% discretionary range to play with last time so their hands are hardly tied, are they? The community also demered in reducing the range below 65% so the logical conclusion of the combined impact of the 2 related RfC is that the lower edge cannot be below 65%. But it is clear that will not fly. There is ample evidence of anxiety expressed in a couple of recent close call RfA that suggest concern about 'crats. decision making. That should be of general concern. If I might suggest therefore that improved transparency in the dubious !vote "weighing" process at the heart of this? Also finally, if perhaps a bit more thought might be put into the manner in which opinions are actually written? Several of the Rexx 'crat "opinions" clearly did not instill confidence, contributing to the dissatisfaction. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Acting beyond the discretionary range has needlessly politicized our bureaucrats. When bureaucrats can ignore any number of votes they don't like, any voting at RfA becomes purposeless. We all expect bureaucrats to eliminate sockpuppet votes but editors can have legitimate concerns about RfA candidates that ought to be respected. Making the discretionary range firm prevents outcomes like the RexxS RfA. Of course, as evidenced by the names below, seldom does anyone voluntarily accept limits on their own power, hence why it's so important that the community enforce a strict limit. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Strongly Support During the RexxS vote, I asked a question what was the difference between kinds of votes and was given different answers. The Crats used the adjectives to find their own consensus. Normally one wins or loses a vote but for administrators there is a sliding scale, 100 - 75% you are in. Three years ago a discretionary percent of 65 to 74% was added authorizing the bureaucrats could find consensus and let you in. The rules had middle ground. With RexxS they said 64% is close enough and ok because he would be a good administrator. My problem is that it appears if the Misplaced Pages insiders like you, the guidelines can be read to find consensus as the insiders want. I am a political scientist and that is no way to run an organization. The rules should be made clear. I think rules were clear and if below 65% you lost. Others thought differently and used their power to declare a winner. Those who are opposing this rule change should think again. Find a system that editors find fair and equally enforced and they will stay or like many institutions, you too will fade away ie. churches, political parties, Jaycees, Boy Scouts on and on. Eschoryii (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support a defined absolute cut-off, whichever number is chosen (65%, 60%, whatever). I didn't participate in the RexxS RfA and have not commented in all those related discussions, but a clear rule in future would avoid all this aggro. There obviously is already a de facto cut-off somewhere within the percentage scale (e.g. nobody would suggest the crats should discuss a candidate with 45% support), so agreeing what that is, and stating it clearly, is a fairer way of proceeding. Having an ambiguously defined, sliding scale of eligibility for admin status, to an extent disenfranchises editors who vote in RfAs. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support You need to draw the line somewhere, and you can avoid controversy if you have logical set rules. An approximate 2/3 supermajority was intended (~66 % or 65 %). Low 60s percentage is a poor result. It means you don't most likely have the community trust when you're closer to just half of the editors trusting giving the tools to you. That is divisive. Simply put, without a bottom number, the support percentage for succesful RfAs gets too low and it just gives power away from the community to the bureaucrats. This is not to say that 65.1 % would be a significantly better result. It's not, and many candidates have withdrawn if it's looking they end up low in the discretionary range. --Pudeo (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm just starting this to clear things up, because so many have argued for a hard limit on bureaucrat discretion. I, for one, think it's useless wikilawyering. Biblio (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
2. I strongly oppose any hard-and-fast numbers rules for determining consensus on any discussion, whether XFD, RFA, or RFB. For example, imagine a case where an RFA candidate gets an admin friend of his to block some potential opposers when the RFA starts, and this information is only discovered 6 days into the RFA. Such an RFA would almost certainly fail if that information was known from day 1, but, instead, it finishes at 85% because most people don't revisit the page. Or imagine a case where a non-notable band canvasses their fans to go vote keep on their article's AFD. Should a bunch of canvassed voters count more than policy-based delete rationales? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Our 'crats are some of the best folks we have. I have far more confidence in their ability to exercise discretion than in the community's ability to not cast silly votes. Adrian J. Hunter 00:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose per fifth pillar. Nothing about the change from 65.1% to 64.9% support makes consensus suddenly disappear, and our policies should not act like it does. Wugapodes 01:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per needless instruction creep. I also oppose on the basis that we elect Bureaucrats to be able, among many other things, to decide among themselves the outcome of an RfA and to have Bureaucrat chats. If we don't agree with the outcome of a Bureaucrat chat, that's natural. What's not natural is to pull an RfC to try to limit their discretion every time we don't agree with the result of their actions. Finally, the probable reason for this RfC is the latest Bchat on RexxS's RfA. I found the arguments there totally logical and mainstream, both pro and con. That one side prevailed is perfectly OK. It was a very well-done, convincing, instructive, and thoughtful Bchat. It demonstrated the expertise and thoughtfulness of the participating bureaucrats. Kudos to all participants. Dr. K. 01:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose This is contrary to both the letter and spirit of CONSENSUS and NOTAVOTE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose per all the endless discussions elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
8. Strongest possible oppose per others’ comments. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above Leviv ich 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose because a) there really are often !votes that should be ignored if not struck altogether, and b) that's what we have the crats for anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Misplaced Pages is governed by WP:CONSENSUS, which is the opposite of democratic vote counting. Trying to enforce percentages in wholly against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ~Swarm~ 02:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Swarm and others. Simply not the way Misplaced Pages works. The proposal opens the RFA process up to gaming, if opponents know they only have to force the tally under 65 to get it nixed without appeal. We hire crats to make precisely this decision and some good faith, and accepting the result even when it goes against you, would be in order here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose per my opposition to all thresholds hard or soft and TheRamblingMan's well argued points above. I strongly believe that every !vote at RFA needs to be judged on its merits and weight applied accordingly. Any arbitrary threshold is contrary to that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose per LeakyCauldron, who has demonstrated admirably how establishing consensus is far too nuanced to broken down into math. ——SerialNumber54129 09:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
15. Oppose Bureaucrats are appointed for their skill of judging the consensus of public opinion, which is not usually policy-based. In a straightforward election such as for Arbcom numbers and percentages are essential with a limited number of seats but this isn’t the case with RfA. Aiken D 10:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
16. Oppose while it should be rare for crats to go beyond the normal discretionary band sometimes it is merited. I think we can all agree on certain scenarios where it is merited and certain ones where it isn't. The real bun fight begins on the reasons that are contentious, I listed several on WT:RFA and I imagine that this will be a major topic for a future RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
17. Oppose and can I express just how disappointed I am in the behaviour of a small number of editors who refuse to let this issue rest. I am unable to escape the feeling that two sections on WT:RFA and one section at WP:RFAR can be boiled down to nothing more than "I don't like it. I'm not happy that I'm not getting my own way". RFA is already a deeply unsatisfactory affair when one third to one quarter of the community can over-rule two thirds to three quarters of the community. There's not even any evidence that admins with low pass percentages are more likely to be subject to reversals of their actions at venues such as DRV, reports at ANI or desysopping via ArbCom. I've actually tended to think the admins most susceptible to problematic behaviour are those with at or near 100% support at RfA, they don't necessarily get that little voice shoved into the back of their head saying 'remember what so-and-so said at your RfA about doing that or saying that - just re-think this action' so I've absolutely no hesitation in supporting what our bureaucrats do, how they do it and that they be permitted the flexibility needed to continue to do it.
    I said some of this at the Arbitration case page, but to repeat and expand, I would implore the community to ensure their comments at RfA are easy for the closing bureaucrats to understand and act upon, that any issues or problems with a candidate are clearly enumerated (with diffs, of course) so that other editors may more easily understand the concerns and determine how such evidence may impact on their own thoughts regarding the candidate. If you make a flippant remark despite having a serious concern, you cannot be surprised if your flippant remark receives less weighting than a detailed comment with diffs and discussion showing how those diffs may impact on adminship. I would ask that people reading this think about applying this advice to Suppose comments just as much as Oppose comments, a good well rounded discussion, which is what RFA really needs to be, given the difficulty of the process now, aids not just the candidate, but also the participants, it's particularly useful as an admin to come along and see a few comments, be they Support or Oppose which might give me something to think about, have I and the community drifted apart on a particular aspect of deletion or blocking policy, for example. Nick (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
18. Oppose, don't want to bore you, mostly by convincing short point by Adrian J. Hunter above (no. 3), and with thanks to the bureaucrats who have shown reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose- IMO, if a discussion at the extreme end of the discretionary range is closed the other way, there need to be clear, compelling, and and exceptional reasons. That didn't happen here. But this concern doesn't directly call for establishing rigid boundaries. Actually crappy or trollish opinions should be tossed out- I just wish the crats hadn't done the same to so many legitimate ones this time. Reyk _YO! 12:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
20. Oppose. The bureaucrats are chosen for their ability to judge consensus, and consensus is not numbers, and the bureaucrats should not be bounds by numerical constraints because that is contrary to the nature of consensus decision making. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
21. Oppose I'm happy with zero-100 being discretionary zone for crat-chat backed decisions if any feel there is sufficient grounds to suspect consensus either for or against is different from the raw numbers. 65-75 seems ok for discretionary for a closure by an individual crat, but I'd expect only ones where it is pretty clear what consensus is in this range to be closed autonomously. As many above said, and SmokeyJoe's recent comment in the preceding section says it well, Wiki Consensus is based on strength of argument, not raw numbers. If you want to go to raw numbers the crat role is redundant. I'm sure there are a few users around who would quickly game the system if it ever goes to raw numbers. ClubOranje 14:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
22. Oppose RexxS passed. Get over it. Some people asked the candidate to resign. An SPI was filed and declined (after Arbcom were asked to comment) which could have had a bearing on the case. The crat chat talk page attracted too many people trying to influence the crats after the RfA proper had closed. A second request to Arbcom was declined 0 to 10. Then there is yesterday's RfC on this page - which venue will be tried next? ANI? Jimbo's talk page? Snapchat? There are many things to do on Misplaced Pages, and being picky about a subjective judgment is not one of them. Discretion does not allow for purely objective criteria, so 64.0625% being a fraction of one percent less than 65% is neither here nor there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
23. Oppose Simply, as consensus is not a vote. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
24. Oppose for as long as we seek "consensus" and not simple mathematics, we should allow 'crats to IAR and do what they believe is the best for Misplaced Pages. Of course, those against such principles are entitled to seek the de-crat of anyone they believe to abused their position. If they don't do that, then I guess they don't truly believe that any 'crat actually did act outside of their entitlement. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
25. Oppose. I want to go on record as feeling very strongly that we should never reduce the process of determining consensus to simply being a matter of arithmetic. If the result of this RfC ends up being a strong consensus that the editors who are objecting on the basis that 64≠65 have gotten it wrong, then that would be a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
26. Pile-on oppose. Only elections can have clear cutoffs. RFA is a discussion, not an election. If you want clear cutoffs, establish consensus to turn RFA into an election. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
27. RfAs are a debate. They are not a poll/election/vote/plebiscite. Oppose. AGK ■ 18:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
28. Oppose Bureaucrats should be permitted to do their jobs. That 10% zone where their discretion comes in should itself be subject to their discretion. It's not like they're regularly rejecting the views of the community, they almost always follow the guideline. Occasional exceptions should be tolerated, or even encouraged, under the theory that bureaucrats are supposed to determine consensus, not count votes. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
29. Oppose - Crats are chosen for their good sense and discretion. We should let them use it, even when outside of the discretionary range. I might change my tune if I saw a grossly inappropriate RfA closure, but I'm not holding my breath. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
30. Oppose - We limit the bureaucrats corps to those we particularly trust to gauge consensus. These trusted community members should be given leeway to judge consensus as they see fit. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
31. Oppose per the 10 other discussions we're having about this same non-issue. Natureium (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
32. Oppose It's not really about the numbers. I would be fine with a 62% RfA passing as long as the bureaucrats are properly reading the consensus of the community. People are talking about the wrong thing here and are getting needlessly caught up in numbers. The issue is the bureaucrats who misread the consensus based on their own view of the candidate. Nihlus 01:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
33. Oppose: Bureaucrats have discretion because judging consensus is not a mathematical process. The RfC provided community views that the threshhold / standards were not reflecting community beliefs and provided guidance as to what was more in line with community expectations. It did not dictate that the nature of RfA was to suddenly be purely !vote counting outside a range and that the quality of arguments was only relevant inside that range – such an outcome would be perverse, but is the logical inference from strict "must promote above" and "must not promote below" boundaries. Bureaucrats should be commended for taking the time and making the effort to carefully evaluate consensus in edge cases, and I hope that they continue to carry out that responsibility diligently even though it is inevitable that some editors will disagree in these cases. EdChem (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
34. oppose this is why we needed crat Hhkohh (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
35. Oppose per Nick, who articulates my thoughts on this much better than I could. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Mostly no per my points at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Order_of_operations above. If we want to see a hard-and-fast rule perhaps it should be larger, overlapping the existing - such as (always reject under 50%+1 numerical vote, and always approve when >90%) - but I really don't think that is needed as I can't ever recall a closure outside of those ranges in the other direction. — xaosflux 01:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with a ten percent discretionary zone. The issue is whether exceptions to that 10% band should be rare or not allowed at all, looking at the above we probably have consensus to stick to rare. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Bottom only - there are some concerns about last minute radical changes causing rapid falling of support % in the last 24/36 hours - which we have seen, though not to just outside the threshold. Perhaps an amendment to the idea, making it fuzzy over 75% and hard under. 'Crats usually support candidates these days, so I think it very unlikely a candidate who was on 76% but not undergoing a rapid changing of support/oppose would fail to demonstrate consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Biblio's incorrect use of "in general" mischaracterized the 2015 RfC. The community did not support a fuzzy limit, which would really be no limit, at all. Please see how allowing leeway has created an incentive for 'crats to meddle with this. Protect our 'crats by limiting their authority. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think you are mistaken. The 2015 contains no consensus to create a hard numerical cutoff. The question was only whether to change the at the time existing 70-75 range to 65-75. There was no suggestion to change the spirit of the rest of the text which beforehand read Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion. Before and after the 2015 RFC, it was clear, as evident from the strong opposition above, that there was and is consensus that any numbers mentioned are merely historical precedents (afaict, there has been wording to this effect on the page from the beginning in one form or another). Regards SoWhy 18:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  If there is a numerical range, then the number actually matters. If the actual decision always rest with bureaucrats, then RfAs can pass at 20% and fail at 90%, with no reason other than 'crats choosing which group of votes matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  If such an unprecedented and impossible to believe absurd decision were to made, we can establish a consensus to decrat the gone-mad crat(s). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  "Protect our 'crats"?? Trout for Troutman. WOW. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  I know that anyone is more likely to be corrupted when offered the opportunity. During the Mérida Initiative the idea was to put more authority within the Mexican Army because the Federales were known to be corrupt and untrustworthy, not recognizing that the Federales were corrupt only because many sought to corrupt them while ignoring the Army because it wasn't in law enforcement. Once the Army was put in place of the Federales, they proved just as corruptible. Giving 'crats this sort of authority to pass or fail any candidate will only ruin them. If you cared about the institution more than this RfA outcome, you'd recognize that. But you were desysopped for cause, so maybe you didn't think through it all the way. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Nothing to do with corruption whatsoever, but good try, I'll fire up the barbie for that massive trout though! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think whoever is wrong and whoever is right, it is time to drop the stick.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Well perhaps we need a cratchat to determine who is right and who is wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Not if everybody drops their stick. Otherwise we might need a dead horse chat.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Propose Speedy Close per WP:SNOW This, like pretty much all of the related threads that a handful of editors have been using to vent, is going no where at the speed of light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, go ahead. I only started this so we could have some clarity on the core point of contention here. Fortunately there is already a 94% consensus: the discretionary range is not a hard-and-fast absolute. Case closed, move on. Biblio (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would strongly argue NOT to close this early. Since there has been so much dissension caused, having a very clear decision in this issue is important. Unless consensus changes some day in the future, which of course it can, this provides an affirmative response to those concerned about closes outside of the 65-75% range. Closing this early would have the effect of reducing its authority. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS Hysteria

This is getting out of hand. He passed. Arbcom is not getting involved. The community is not going to strip crats of their discretion. We are not going to abolish CONSENSUS and or NOTAVOTE. These endless debates and proposals that have zero chance of going anywhere are getting close to being vexatious. Suggesting a newly minted admin resign w/o evidence of abuse of the tools is shockingly inappropriate. All of this crap needs to stop. It's fine to state your strong disagreement with the outcome of a contentious community discussion. Been there and done that. But at some point everybody needs to step back and drop the bloody stick. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean this as request to resign as characterized by Redrose? Because it does not actually look like a request to resign. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure who is asking him to do that - certainly not me. His situation is irrelevant. There are concerns expressed about competence, consistency and communication skills. 'Crats should be the very best at demonstrating those important attributes and there is clearly concern in some situations. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support opening statement in this section. Crats are not software automatons. We cannot confine their intellect to the arbitrary numerical limits 65%-100%. We should thank them for exercising their discretion so capably and for their lucid and persuasive reasoning while doing so, not criticise them for it. Dr. K. 17:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: - I feel we should confine them to 100% - we should look suspiciously on those RfAs with more than 100% support ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Lol, yes. Setting the RfA pass limit to 100% would solve a lot of problems, including making the software programme needed to reach a decision much simpler, as it would require very few steps of code. Obviously, there would be no requirement of Crats or any kind of chat, thus the process would be greatly simplified. Over 100% support would be even better. In that case, we could also apply for a perpetual-motion machine patent. :) Dr. K. 17:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• As one of the more vehement opposers in the RfA, I endorse this. I appreciate that I was given the opportunity to state an opinion, and I respect that consensus went the other way. This process has run its course. Geogene (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone thinks crats are automatons. Recently, a crat found it important to say that crats are fallible human-beings. We don't expect them to be philosopher kings, either. But, as between "consensus" and "no consensus", they make it still look like a vote. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• This whole drama is nothing but a tantrum being thrown by a small handful of users who are unhappy that they didn't get their desired result. Their procedural argument is dubious on its own merits, and goes against every basic ideal and norm we have on this project. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, WP:5P5. These users would throw our most fundamental tenets in the garbage, just to block a user who got a 64% instead of a 65%. It's ridiculous. The 'crats came to a strong consensus that there was a consensus to promote. No one has any legitimate grounds to suggest that these 'crats did anything other than their jobs—to competently assess consensus. These 'crats are the most thoroughly-vetted, trusted users on the project. One needs a very strong reason to question their readings of consensus, and procedural stonewalling is the opposite of a strong reason. We do have some "relic 'crats" who were handed the permission in the early days of the project with minimal scrutiny, and one could argue that their credentials are dubious, but in this case, that wasn't part of the promotion. If anything, these "relic 'crats" voting against promotion, while our two new 'crats vote in favor, just further erodes their credibility, along with the argument that there should not have been a promotion: half the users who tried to rule "no consensus" were not screened for their position by modern standards. There is just no credible case to be made here that the decision was wrong. ~Swarm~ 19:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• This. The one redeeming feature of this enormous clusterfuck is that I've now got the names of another three or four users I will oppose if/when they decide to play RfA wheel-of-misfortune themselves. Nick (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. Thanks Swarm for a succinct analysis. The few individuals to whom you allude are doing themselves no favours and would do well to step away from the whole saga. I respect their point of view and they had every right to express it. But I know as well as anyone that decisions on-Wiki don't always go your way, but when they don't you move on and go back to building the encyclopedia, in whatever way you do that, which is why we're all here in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• The 'crats don't evaluate on a score card points system. They each have their own way of examining the evidence for support or oppose as objectively as possible and that's what we pay them for, but it would needlessly prolong the process if, for example, a unanimous verdict were to be insisted upon, a minimum quorum, or laying down some strict formula for consistency, or a firm numerical cut-off.

Thus comparing the RexxS and the JBHunley RfAs is comparing apples with oranges - the only similarity was that they were both in the discretionary zone and both went to a 'crat chat. There was actually far more drama surrounding the Hunley RfA than the RexxS but nobody saw fit to re-debate the RfA system or the role of the Bureaucrats. The community needs to wake up to the fact that we have the Bureaucrats, a user group with the highest level of trust within their sphere of remit (even higher than that of Arbcom) and we have conferred on them the responsibility of adjudicating on close calls.

Anything else that may be wrong with RfA is the fault of the voters themselves: vindictive voters, clueless voters, trolls, vandals, socks, general drama mongers, and those who always resent the role and existence of admins. Biblioworm's reforms lowered the bar and doubled the voter turnout, but none of them addressed the core issues or led to an increase in the number of candidates coming forward. It's time to put an end to this drama and look for ways to address the real problems with RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the core problem is the voters themselves. The only way to fix that is to directly restrict who can vote and how they can do so. You have made clerking proposals, and I did also, but none of them passed. I don't think it will ever happen through an RfC. People simply will not reach a consensus to rein in their own irrationality. Biblio (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Voters are only the problem if we treat every point that one of them raises in the debate as a vote. Votes are to be weighed equally with all others, and striking is a serious development. Debates by their nature see points all across a spectrum of quality or validity; weighing them differently is natural. The real problem is whether RfA is an election or a discussion. AGK ■ 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  People simply will not reach a consensus to rein in their own irrationality.. Nicely stated, regrettably true. · · · Peter Southwood : 16:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should Crats give greater latitude to long established community members when closing RFAs?

Whether on not the Crats have discretion outside the 65%-75% discretionary zone, there are various things that have been posited as factors that crats should or should not take into account when weighing RFA consensus. Some of these may not have been discussed by the community for some time, by discussing them individually hopefully we can reaffirm or end consensus as to which of these considerations are reasonable for the crats to focus on in crat chats.

Question: Should the discretion of bureaucrats in Requests for Adminship include giving a little extra benefit of the doubt for very long established members of the community? (In practice this would mean that an RFA candidate who had been here for over ten years would, all other things being equal, be more likely to pass RFA at 65% than someone who had only been here five or six years)?

If your answer to the above is "yes," support. If your answer is "no," oppose.

ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Tenure is important at RFA, It has been a while since anyone has passed with only 12 months activity. Nominations make a big thing of the amount of time that candidates have been on wiki, and rightly so as longer established editors are more likely to have adopted the values and learned the skills that we like to see in admins. However, the voters already take tenure into account, arguably as one of the most easily measured things at RFA it already has too much weight in RFA discussions, and therefore I do not think that Crats should give extra weight to long established editors when assessing RFAs in crat chats. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   It’s really bad form to pose questions for yourself to oppose. Confusing, convoluting to the logic, not a positive way of moving forwards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose Fully agree. No need for 'crats to double down (or up) on a characteristic that has been fully expounded by the !votes. 'Crats should concern themselves with the marginal factors in the marginal decisions they get involved in. Anything else is effectively them imposing a personal choice. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose and strongly suggest this is ended, as we've got enough RFCs going on. I know of several "established" editors who don't know the first thing about adminship, who would make terrible admins. As I mentioned somewhere above, there aren't a limited number of admin seats, so there's no need to compare how long people have been here and prioritise those who were first. It doesn't work like that. Aiken D 10:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   With respect to WSC, I see this as a genuine attempt to synthesise an improved narrative for the 'crat chat process. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose per nom. Slightly unusual, that! ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
5. This is getting fucking ridiculous now, or have I missed the proclamation stating that everybody has to run a fucking RfC now ? I've said much of this repeatedly over the last few days, if you don't want your comment at RfA to be discounted or to receive less weighting, make sure it's clear, rational, includes evidence where appropriate and that comedy/flippancy doesn't obscure the underlying intent of the comment. Nick (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   In the most recent Cratchat one crat clearly stated that "The Opposition is largely concentrated on one issue in relation to which limited evidence is presented despite the candidate being a longstanding contributor." My emphasis. So at present your clear and rational oppose could be given less weight simply because the candidate is a longstanding contributor. I'm not sure if the community still agrees with that, hence this RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 11:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   I read that quite differently. Less weight may have been applied because, even though the candidate had been around for a long time, the opposes could only find limited evidence to support their case. ClubOranje 12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   (ec with ClubOranje) WereSpielChequers perhaps WJBscribe could clarify, but I understood the comment to mean something like "Because the candidate is a longstanding contributor, if the issue was persistent, it should have been easy to present lots of evidence. That hasn't happened, so it's probably not a persistent issue." Not "The candidate is a longstanding contributor, so having just one problem issue is ok." Adrian J. Hunter 12:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   That's how I would read it too - that concerns expressed could be considered 'out of character' rather than 'indicative of character'. Nick (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Crats should not be micromanaged. Crats are chosen for their ability to read the fuzziness of consensus, and people who don’t understand that should stand back. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I agree with WereSpielChequers summary above. Longevity and level of community engagement are certainly valid factors, but they should emerge in the !voting at the RFA rather than given special consideration by crats. I disagree that this was a major factor in the recent controversy though. If the crats mentioned this in the chat it was because it was something that was emphasised in the support column, not because they were using it as a reason to apply different rules.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
8. per @Nick: The 'Crats have broken no policy that I can see: They haven't given favoured treatment to a longstanding editor; Closing 'crat felt the RFA fell in the discretionary zone once discussion had been evaluated, but a complex discussion so the closing 'crat didn't do a discretionary close. Instead, invoked the collective opinions of other crats who determined after considering the opinions, and probably the foundations behind those opinions, there was greater call for promotion than not and ruled consensus was such. Isn't that what they are (not)paid to do? Evaluate consensus and close RFAs? Why would we feel we have to keep telling them how to do their job.

   Imagine how good Misplaced Pages would be if we all spent this time improving content, adding sources, welcoming new contributors, fighting vandalism, Maybe we need an RFC to see if we need some more RFCs to distract us. If "Yes", keep arguing, if "No", get on with actual useful tasks. ClubOranje 12:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

9. Wrong Question: The 'crats have a single task at RfA – to decide on whether consensus is present to grant access to the sysop tools. They are (and should remain) free to take into account whatever is needed for them to reach a conclusion on whether consensus is present. I agree with SmokeyJoe that micro-managing them on what to consider and how to decide consensus is unhelpful. Either we trust the 'crats to do carry out the duties for which they were supported to undertake, or we don't trust them and should be replacing them. Trying to guess at everything that might be relevant in a future case to deciding consensus and then mandating how it should be handled is not a sensible way forward, and the tenure issue raised in this RfC is merely one example of a possibly relevant factor. We don't have to agree with every decision to retain confidence that the 'crats are acting in line with their mandate and coming to defensible / reasonable conclusions in individual RfA closes. I believe that they should retain a breadth of discretion as this allows flexibility to deal with individual circumstances / situations as they arise. Consequently, I oppose mandating how they must examine any particular factor or issue. If there is an RfA with 80% support but 'crats can make a sensible, reasonable, evidence-based case to explain why there is no consensus, I'm fine with that – and equally if a consensus to promote existed despite 60% opposition. I don't know what those circumstances might be, and I'd certainly want to take a close look at the reasoning offered in support of the conclusion, but if there was solid reasoning and the conclusion was reasonable then I'd accept that they have the necessary discretion to reach that conclusion... and if it was ridiculous supervoting in the face of a clear consensus to the contrary, we can approach that 'crat to reconsider, ask other 'crats to step in, call for a resignation, and ultimately take the 'crat to ArbCom for decratting if needed. What we should not do is tell the 'crats they may only decide consensus while standing on one foot and reading the discussion in a mirror while shaving their other leg (assuming that the 'crats are all two legged). EdChem (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
10. The question correctly advances the principle that RfAs are a debate, not an election. The question then fails (as so many are recently doing) to grasp the difficulty of assessing consensus after a debate with a prescribed yardstick or formula. We cannot expect bureaucrats to do their job while also saying they must "weigh experienced editors' comments more heavily" or follow some other rule no matter specifics of the given case. At best we can provide bureaucrats with a vague and unquantified list of factors to be considered, which seems useless and like something a bureaucrat knew well enough. It would be action for its own sake. And we would still miss the point that prescribing the methods for assessing consensus is difficult to do on a hypothetical, theoretical basis. Our system gets round this by selecting experienced users (bureaucrats) to make the calls in practice, from time to time. To then tie the hands of those making the call undermines the system to some degree. We seem to keep having conversations where this issue is not recognised. AGK ■ 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
11. This is not workable, for the reasons given by AGK and EdChem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
12. No, but the community is free to do so in their RfA comments, or not to do so. If there is a borderline case and the crats observe comments from the community that take tenure into consideration, the crats can evaluate that along with everything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the existence this RfC

1. Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The fact that Maxim said that an established community member should be given the courtesy of a 'crat chat does not mean that the consensus was any different because RexxS was here for a long time. We have 21 bureaucrats for a reason: if one has a dumb opinion, the other 20 will say so. I highly doubt any of 7 the supporting promotion decided to promote RexxS because he was a member to the 10 year society. I also echo Nick above, but I find this RfC so offputting that I refuse to answer and give it the clearly pre-determined outcome it was designed to have. WereSpielChequers, I respect you, but this is honestly the most ridiculous RfC I’ve ever seen put together and only serves to increase drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Unask the question. Discretion is discretion. · · · Peter Southwood : 16:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
3. This RfC does not make much sense; support early closure. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion? (RfC)

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 policies and guidelines 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.

I've been quietly observing this drama filled situation about RexxS, and I think the bigger question is, should crats be treating this as a vote where every vote is treated equally regardless, which in turn creates hard limits and ranges, or is this a discussion where crats weigh the arguments and assess the consensus, resulting in flexible ranges? If it is a vote, should we just switch over to a voting platform like secure poll, or should we keep it as is?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

FTR, I'm neutral in all of this.

Yes, it's a vote

1. 100% it should be a vote. It is currently not, but we should make this change, get rid of crats, and let stewards flip the bit. The “RfA is not a vote, but it really is, until we say it isn’t” mentality’s only purpose is to justify the existence of crats: a user group we only need because of the !vote mentality on something that is very clearly considered a supermajority election by everyone involved. Yes, there are some negatives involved with it (see my meta RfA which was sunk by opposers from one wiki I’ve never been on who would have been ignored on en.wiki), but on the whole it is significantly more fair and reflects the reality of how both nominators and candidates view the process. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   I don't object to it being treated as a vote, but that is a change - if we do go this was we should consider making each vote a secret ballot, or at least removing comments associated with each vote. Worm(talk) 17:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   I actually really like Meta’s model of allowing comments as to why the person is supporting or opposing, but having hard numerical cutoffs. I’m aware this is a change from current policy, and that I’m likely in the minority here, but I think it’s a point worth raising. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Support. Implement along Arbcom. voting lines so discussions and questions remain. Suspect that this is far too radical a proposition though (the whole thing, I mean) Leaky caldron (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Support. It should be a vote, like Arbcom, because otherwise, if it's a discussion to form consensus, we need someone to assess that consensus, and that someone will be a 'crat, and that 'crat will have come from the admin corps. So ultimately, admin will always be assessing the consensus about who should be an admin. That will always create the appearance of impropriety (even if everyone is acting in good faith) in the borderline cases–it's unavoidable. So, to reduce drama, to eliminate accusations of favoritism, etc., to simiplify the process, to make RfA less divisive, and to ultimately increase the number of people who stand for adminship, we should make selection of the consensus-assessors (admin) decided by a straight vote instead of by an assessment of consensus. It's an area where we should have an exception to the general decide-by-consensus rule. That doesn't mean we can't also have a discussion concurrent or prior to the vote, as we do in Arbcom elections. We can have the discussion, but the ultimate decision should be a straight, mathematical, objectively-determined-outcome, one-editor-one-vote process. Leviv ich 19:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Support - I agree that it should be a vote. I feel like everyone has talked about how the process is broken but we haven't tried much to "remedy" that. If not a direct vote, I would modify the current guidelines to make hard cutoffs....65% to 75% for the 'crats to decide it - hard limits though, which would prevent a situation like what just happened. -- Dane 19:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a consensus building discussion

1. Hell no -- Unless we are bringing down the ratio for a flip of bit to 50% + 1. ∯WBG 17:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
2. I vote for a consensus building discussion. I also argue that consensus building is a better way of selecting admins, as a vote leaves us with less material to develop an informed opinion. We do not all know every candidate well enough to responsibly vote without getting some input from others we know and trust, or for that matter, who we know and do not trust. If I know the candidate from personal experience, I can make an informed argument in their favour or against them. Those who trust me can look at my reasoning and decide whether it is reasonable. This may affect their support or lack thereof. Likewise those who do not respect my judgement can consider whether my support or opposition should affect theirs. Either way. If any changes should be made. I suggest that asking people to be more clear in their arguments both for and against the candidate is likely to have positive results, though it cannot be compulsory. As a consensus building discussion, bare numbers are of little value, and consensus determination inherently requires good judgement and the discretion to use it. I think the crats have done their job and justified their existence and should continue to do so. · · · Peter Southwood : 17:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
3. That is how it has been and I don't think it is broken. An open debate allows for people to consider and reconsider; change their minds or strengthen their opinions. There is an ebb and flow absent in a pure vote. It is also an important learning opportunity for the candidate. There is often a lot of valuable constructive criticism posted in these discussions. Even in successful candidacies, the candidate learns the main problematic issues which are perceived, and can work on addressing those. With a secret vote, that community-building criticism is non-existent or much devalued. -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

    Bureaucrat note: <-- For the record. I feel comfortable giving my opinion here as it relates to me as an editor, not as a bureaucrat, but for full disclosure, I am a bureaucrat, and became so (eventually) just over 10 years ago when the cutoff was still 90%+ FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   Well, it could be open voting. On the off chance this closes as “a vote” I imagine a new RfC would be needed on the format, limits, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni: But in that case, we would treat opposes like "I don't like her username" with the same gravitas as "the candidate exhibits a poor grasp of AfD, and here are six examples to prove it". That's what a vote is; pure numeracy with the hope that as many level-headed people partake to outweigh manipulative, vengeful, or just unsupportable votes. With a discussion, judgement can be applied. Whose judgement? Well right now, bureaucrats, true. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

4. No. Of course it's about consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Are we voting on what we believe the system currently is, or what is should be? I would go entirely in the opposite direction and have, similar to CUOS, a comment period and then have the bureaucrats decide whether an editor should be an admin. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
6. No. ClubOranje 19:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
7. It's a hybrid of the two: a consensus building discussion that relies on voting; however, it ends with a determination of consensus so that is where I fall. Nihlus 19:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
8. There are !voting elements, it certainly isn't just a discussion. But the discussion bits are very important, especially for candidates, potential candidates and nominators trying to assess whether they are ready for a run or another run. If anything we should be making it, or at least the oppose section more of a discussion, that said I have no problem if more voters in both support and oppose simply vote per other specific editors if their points have already been made. ϢereSpielChequers 20:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think most people will say it's a bit of both, so I would suggest that unfortunately this RFC isn't going to settle very much...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Didnt the RFC you just closed basically answer this question? –xeno 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In a way, yes, but also slightly different. I commented here because I think the whole concept of bureaucrat discretion should be done away with. The previous RfC was about keeping it but also limiting it to a hard range, which I think is dumb, so I didn’t comment there. I don’t expect this RfC to go any where, but I also think “recognizable users” or whatever you want to call it should comment on things when they have a strongly held minority opinion that others might hold but don’t want to express because of the party line. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Xeno, It's not really the same. The previous RfC proposed setting hard limits on the bureaucrats regarding the discretionary range. This is simply asking if RfX is a consensus or a vote with hard limits. This regards the weighting of votes rather than discretionary limits. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  It isn't remotely the same. That set a limit for discretionary discussion to 65%-75%, instead of 65% minus a bit more fuzzy discretion. This removes 'crat. involvement entirely (except the button part). If I have understood it correctly. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Leaky caldron, precisely. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Is a Watchlist-messages and/or Cent. notice needed for this? Leaky caldron (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Leaky caldron, I didn't intend for one, but if you feel one is needed, feel free to propose it there. I will be happy to add one if no one objects. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Amakuru. Also, with all respect to Cyberpower, this question is improperly formed. The RfC question asks if it is a consensus building mechanism or a vote. That's asking what the situation is now. Cyberpower's support for it being a vote starts off with saying it should be a vote. Is this RfC assessing RfA's current status or is it asking us to change its status? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Hammersoft, Both. And where did I say I supported it being a vote. My small footnote expresses my neutrality of it being either. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, misread the attribution. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Hammersoft, No worries. My question is phrased such that I want to know how the community perceives the process to be and what they think it should be. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think it would be best to set it up as one or the other, not both. I think you're likely to get neither questioned answered properly due to the confusion of which it is. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment