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

Background
Requests for adminship (commonly abbreviated as "RfA") is the process by which the Wikipedia community selects its administrators, trusted users who have the ability to perform certain technical actions. There is widespread consensus that the RfA process is broken, for various reasons, and many reform efforts over the past years have been unsuccessful. In late 2015, a new project, RFA2015, was launched. In the first phase of this project, which consisted of an RfC, the community successfully identified the problems with the RfA process. One of those problems is a hostile environment. In the same RfC, it was suggested that to remedy this problem, we allow certain users (called "clerks") to maintain order and decorum at RfA.

In his closing statement, the closer of that RfC concluded that the "community would like to discuss the idea of clerking", and we will do that in this RfC. Originally, the issue of clerking was to be discussed as a part of the Phase II RfC for RFA2015, but it was determined that because of the issue's complexity, it would be best to discuss it in a separate RfC. Set forth below are proposals concerning: (1) The responsibilities of RfA clerks; (2) Which users are authorized to perform those tasks. This RfC will run for 30 days and will be as widely advertised as possible, since the results may have a major impact on the RfA process. Biblio worm  23:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Per previous discussion, voters are advised to check back after 30 days. If the closer(s) is/are having difficulty assessing consensus, they will post a list of questions about just those points where consensus is unclear, and ask for clarification from the voters, giving notice of the new questions at WP:CENT. - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Basic proposal
The proposal is that there will be certain users called "clerks" at RfA, who will have the authority to preserve order and decorum at RfA by performing certain tasks. The specific tasks will be discussed in this RfC.

Support (basic proposal)

 * 1) Support: Entirely obvious that clerks (in whatever form) need to exist for the RfA process to improve -- samtar whisper 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Suppport.  I don't think this is additional bureaucracy.  It is a consensus that what was an informal process is currently working.  This will help to maintain a constructive and non-hostile atmosphere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - while I don't want this to turn into restricting the sorts of moderation which have developed organically, there are probably some additional things that clerks can do, some of which are being discussed below. It makes sense to have a group of neutral users assigned to these tasks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I think clerking is definitely needed to help reduce the hostile environment. It would not be additional bureaucracy, it would just be having an designated umpire to deal with a number of tasks, including enforcing provisions of the reform in relation to number of questions etc. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support clerking, both properly defining what the community as a whole may do, and appointing some special editors to maintain order. RfA is unique in that we are supposed to comment on the contributor. Hence there is a fine line between legitimate concerns and personal attacks. We need trusted people to draw this line, rather than having unsightly brawls in the oppose section. (btw, I think both the candidate and legitimate opposers currently need better protection). Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, in a sense. As long as all editors are allowed to do the work, overseen by bureaucrats so that troublemakers and clueless editors don't cause problems with clerkwork, I'm a supporter, but I'm opposed to a setting in which a single group of editors is allowed to do the work, but others aren't.  Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. It's plain at this point, per the results of the Phase I RfC, that we need someone to keep RfA orderly. Biblio  worm  22:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support the concept of a clerk. Divided on it's implementation regarding how bureaucratic it becomes. Should there be editors/volunteers who clerk the RfA based on specific guidelines, yes -- but how are they elected/nominated/empowered is another discussion all together. I'm currently leaning away from a formal appointment, and more towards allowing anyone who is following specific guidelines, and subject to oversight. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. By adopting that role users will then have to conform to the expectations and instructions required as per this RFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - The hostile environment at RFA was too big a problem; human clerks is the only solution to this problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - A designated rule-enforcer should cut down on the fights over rule enforcement. --Carnildo (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Having designated clerks could cut down on the drama related to keeping order in RfAs. Sure, proper indenting and moving long threads to the talk page are uncontroversial, but the other RfA reforms promise to introduce changes that might be too controversial for just any user to deal with (removing excess questions, keeping !votes and questions civil, etc.). It's inevitable that someone would have a problem with that work, which is why someone else with a mandate to perform it is important. clpo13(talk) 05:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) It's got to be done. RfA has two problems: its hostility to candidates and its friendliness to griefers, grudge-bearers and weirdoes.  Human monitors are the best answer to both of those problems.— S Marshall  T/C 08:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14)  SQL Query me!  08:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support RfAs' crummy as it is. A bit less crummy? Yes, please. --QEDK ( T  &#10052;  C ) 07:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. We discussed the idea of clerking already at WP:RFA2011. Of course clerking is need. There was never any doubt that it is needed. It sometimes gets done too, but on an ad hoc basis. As long as the voters act like a bunch of unruly kids while the teacher's out of the claroom, we need some prefects to keep them in check. The community has brought these needs upon itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: This RfC was advertised too soon but RfA is broken because of the usual disruptive minority, not the process itself. Esquivalience  t 03:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) There are some "clerking" type activities that anyone can do at RFA and they tend to happen quickly. But there are other things that really need to be done by someone who is not taking a view on the result of the RFA, merely acting as an umpire and keeping it civil.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Support as I already did at 2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Yes. Having an elected and dedicated body responsible for overseeing all RfAs 24/7 makes sense. At the moment it is fairly random and messy. Inappropriate comments may be left in place on one RfA, while legitimate comments are swiftly moved to the talkpage on another RfA, creating an imbalance. Having a clerk body means that borderline comments can be discussed by users voted in because their judgement is trusted, and who by working as RfA clerks become experienced at which comments can be left, and which are likely to be disruptive. Because of the sensitively of the RfA process, leaving it to chance that there are enough users actively watching an RfA who are willing to make judgement calls, and that their calls are the right ones, is no longer a viable option.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Support It would be a big improvement to have an independent, non-involved voice dedicated to keeping the processes on track and honored for this role. Clerks very usefully (and as far as I know uncontroversially) exercise this role in other WP procedures; this is an example of extending a successful method to an area that sorely needs it. HGilbert (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, but only if the idea is to have people actively taking responsibility for some "clerking" type activities on a regular basis, and not to prohibit other people from pitching in and doing it if need be. I do not support the idea of clerk-type functions restricted to only designated clerks. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Support as a solid and helpful proposal. APerson (talk!) 17:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Support with the same caveat as TheBlinkster.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Support per the reasoning of most above; not too impressed by the arguments of opposers. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (basic proposal)

 * 1) Oppose We do not need appointed, selected clerks. Moderation by the community as we have seen recently is always preferable to officials steaming in.  Leaky  Caldron  19:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose formalisation or extension of the existing process. The last few RfAs I have observed seem to be working well without needing formal appointed or elected clerks, or additional bureaucracy. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I missed the Phase I clerking vote due to not being certain, so I'll take this opportunity to say that I really don't think that clerking is necessary; this is overly bureaucratic and I'm not seeing any problems which can't be handled by editors outside of official processes. Sam Walton (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. This is the proverbial solution in search of a problem. We already allow the community to address problems as they arise, and we have Crats for the final decision-making. There is no need at all to designate certain users as authorized to fix problems, in ways that any editor already can. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, because the idea as presented is too bureaucratic. We already have bureaucrats who can do the job, and who should perhaps be encouraged to be more active in doing so. I'm also concerned about how the RfC has been organized. It began without asking for consensus to have clerks. The question was added, and has now been moved and replaced with this, so the people who commented in the other section should be asked to comment again. If there is to be consensus to do this, it has to be very clear, without people feeling they were encouraged to go in that direction without realizing it. SarahSV (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) The whole RfC should be stopped and restarted with this single question next February. The issue has been slanted with people discussing the best way to fix a problem before the existence of a problem has been demonstrated. Simple clerking by admins (example) is sufficient, and there is no reason an RfA candidate should be cosseted from the rough and tumble that occurs on every other noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Hat collection. —Cryptic 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose The basic proposal is to formalise the current arrangements but they are unsatisfactory and a more fundamental improvement is required. Compare the recent Arbcom elections, in which most candidates got hundreds of opposes without there being much unpleasantness or bickering. Andrew D. (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. This clerk silliness is insane bureaucracy on stilts. So many boards, so many hats to collect, where the problem we're solving hasn't even been defined. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Oppose. I agree with the comments above that speak of unnecessary bureaucracy. The sort of things that some editors have been doing at recent RfAs, such as moving long, tendentiously argued threads from RfA pages to their talk pages, are all we need. These are things that can be done by any editor with sufficient gumption. I have voted in favour of certain actions suggested by this RfC, because I think it is useful to ascertain and document the community's approval of some kinds of action (and disapproval of other kinds). But all my votes must be understood to be on the assumption that any sufficiently competent editor can do the approved kinds of action. I strongly object to any notion that a new layer of authority might be created here and that other competent editors should not be allowed to help the project in these ways. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Echoing our extinct invertebrate friend from below: I think I'm in the minority on this, but to be honest I think the recent outbreak of assertive pseudoclerking is already a little too much. It attracts undue attention to things that ought to be just part of the background noise. We can safely ignore the silly nonsense most of the time. Clear harassment can be removed, and we already deal with that as admins. — Earwig   talk  05:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per all of the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose the concept of giving any user the notion that they need to start interfering with other people's comments, or to mess about with RfA or god knows what else. We have the status quo and WP:IAR to curb obvious disruption; since most of these proposals are aimed at (what is sometimes explicitly described as) "obvious" disruption, I think they're redundant and would just cause instruction creep. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong oppose; no need to appoint or select users to be specialists in doing what any bold editor should feel free to do; i cannot see that more bureaucracy is the answer to any of the issues at RfA; cheers, LindsayHello 08:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose, against having to specially qualify a subsection of editors for just this one task. — xaosflux  Talk 19:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose as completely unneeded additional stratification of users. So, we elect clerks and then if I see something egregious that should be dealt with in an RfA I am now powerless to do anything? What? We do not need more bureaucratic bodies to solve what ails RfA. If I don't have the power to do something when backed by policy then a clerk doesn't have the power either. If a clerk does have that power, than I should have that power too. We need to abandon the idea that regular editors are heathen hordes, devoid of character and thoroughly untrustworthy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - Bureaucratic creep. Carrite (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose per SarahSV and Opabinia regalis. What would be preferable, in my opinion, would be for the project members to accept more active curation of discussion by the bureaucrats without such curation affecting said bureaucrat's ability to close the discussion. If this kind of curation and oversight is viewed as having implicit preference for support or opposition, then having a new class will not help claims of partiality. If it isn't, then we already have members able to do so—the bureaucrats—we just have to make clear that enforcing "order and decorum" in these requests does not render one ineligible to close the request or partake in any necessary discussions about the request. -- Avi (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per Carrite. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose We have the usual channels for keeping law and order. No need for a local policeman. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation. Made me think of this proposal which went up in flames 4 years ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not required, the issues are with the attitudes prevalent at RFA which feel like it's some closed off old boy's club with hazing rituals, hit that problem first then talk about the idea of clerking. tutterMouse (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the creation of a separate category of users called "RfA clerks," which is what I understand this proposal to be. That is simply creating more bureaucracy in a system that already has too much, per Opabinia regalis. If, instead, we were to frame this as "we want admins to "clerk" at RfA, now let's determine what "clerking" is," I would see this very differently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose At the end of the day, the real clerks should be 'crats, as they are there to assess consensus and thus the usefulness of !votes. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Moved to Neutral.
 * 1) Oppose "Bureaucracy gives birth to itself and then expects maternity benefits." Dale Dauten -- Softtest123 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Based upon what I have seen in the past few RfAs, the community seems to be doing a better job of policing itself. I'm certain that enough admins are watching each RfA to step in when necessary (as happened in the last two RfAs with a particular editor). — Jkudlick t c s 07:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose adding bureaucracy such as a new group of editors (with a Request-for-RFA-clerk process). A guideline as to what clerking edits it is reasonble for different existing classes of users to make might be appropriate. E.g. IPs/newbies should not make clerking edits, experienced editors in good standing can fix clear breaches of rules (e.g. remove IP !votes), admins can ..., crats can .... DexDor(talk) 12:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose since Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, that is:
 * 1. We, Wikipedians should be polite and proud to edit Wikipedia.
 * 2. If we are not, we are arbitrated via RfAs.
 * There is no 3: The buck should stop there, otherwise, we will create Level 4, 5, 6, 7... ad infinitum. Zezen (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per many of the reasons already given in the above votes/comments.  INeverCry   01:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too much bureaucracy already. - Ne  ll  is  08:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Don't really see a need for this.  Spencer T♦ C 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, needless bureaucracy, a "cure" worse than the problem. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Current bureaucrats are not doing enough clerking anyway, so why do we need to create a group of RfA clerks to do the few tasks that bureaucrats wouldn't do? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) The tone at RFA is the bureaucrats' responsibility. Enshrining a class of busybodies to do the 'crats dirty work would be amusing, but ultimately confusing. And I realize there's a cottage industry around dulling the awful RFA hazing ritual, but in reality civility at RFA hasn't been a significant issue in a while. Townlake (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Yes, there are sometimes problems at RfA - inappropriate questions, too many questions, badgering of "oppose" !voters, etc. Those problems are currently dealt with by the community, and I rarely see any objection to the way they are dealt with. I oppose setting limits on who can deal with problems, and I oppose creating a new "hat" for ambitious people to collect. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose – I do not see another class of users as necessary to manage RfA. RfAs should be treated like any other Wikipedia discussion and managed appropriately. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay, let's create even more different roles, classes and functions on WP.... Oppose. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose We desperately need to accommodate more assholes on power trips who need their own feifdoms to rule with absolute authority.  Not.-- Elvey (t•c) 06:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral (basic proposal)

 * 1) I'll be neutral to this part because I agree with some of the tasks however I am divided about whether we should formalize it and give it a section at WP:PERMS or even make a Requests for Adminship Clerk or just leaving it and potentially regarding it the same as non-admin closure. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm neutral as well. If clerks end up being created then I support them helping out with some of the suggested tasks below. However, I think any good-faith user can implement these suggestions. It doesn't necessarily have to be formalised. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Count my position for the basic part as neutral -- I am welcome to regulation of RfA, but not for the process of regulation to become overly formal. Therefore, I am happy voting below for the individual rights of clerks, but not hinting towards clerks having a formal identity. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion (basic proposal)

 * I'm opposed to this, per #1 above. However, even if mildly attracted to the idea of a formal clerk, isn't the selection process likely to result in issues currently associated with RFA? How is RfClerk going to operate - with a clerk to clerk the RfClerk? Oh dear me! Leaky  Caldron  15:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that's the obvious problem with creating a new "tier" or "hat", and expanding the bureaucracy. I was going to expand on why that is undesirable, unnecessary, and even potentially exclusive, at great, and tedious length, but you are all spared that because just said pretty much everything I was going to, and better, in his "Oppose" comment above.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If this proposal does not pass, the consensus would seem to be that all clerking should be informal, not that there should not be any cleanup/civility enforcement/question management/etc. If so, I find that acceptable. Biblio  worm  16:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Experienced editors "clerk" most processes on wikipedia already. It has always been the case. I don't think anyone is suggesting responsible and experienced editors should not continue to look after RFA, as they do already - just that, maybe, appointed "mall cops" are not the solution to this "problem". Valuable insight into how RFA should be looked after can still result here. Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'm in the minority on this, but to be honest I think the recent outbreak of assertive pseudoclerking is already a little too much. It attracts undue attention to things that ought to be just part of the background noise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's a fair point too. We now give comments that should (and, historically, would have) been ignored their own talk page section and a big shiny link to it. Something doesn't add up there. Begoon &thinsp; talk
 * Indeed a good point. A recent RFA with 100+ support v a single oppose had fuel thrown on the dying embers of a discussion by Admin "mall cops" instead of it being allowed to die a natural. The rationale was "we need to get our message across!" Is that what we really want, drama for the sake of it? Leaky  Caldron  17:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Opabinia R as well. But isn't this a case of what we do and don't want done, rather than who should and shouldn't do it? --Stfg (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement too. How on earth was this necessary in an RfA that passed 154/1/0? Not to mention the badgering and threats posted to Joseph's talk page. All that was necessary was xeno's clerking note, and (even this wasn't required, but I think it was a mature way of responding) this message from 78.26. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I happen to disagree. RfA will become even worse of a firepit than it is now if we strike down not only formal clerking, but informal clerking as well. Does anyone realize the potential unintended consequences of doing that? Disruptive people would have the ability to say or do anything they wanted and break any policy or established community expectation without restriction. For instance, the a community-approved question limit (which is now looking very likely) would be rendered useless, since no one could enforce it. I think we will always have to have informal clerking in some manner, and in any case I don't think it's within the power of the community to outright forbid the enforcement of its own policies and expectations (that's just plain silly), except by reversing those policies or expectations. And in any case, I'm pretty sure the "consensus" of one or two dozen here couldn't override the consensus of about 100 people on the other RfC. Biblio  worm  17:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed the point of this section of the thread. The discussion is about recent unnecessary throwing of fuel on a fire when this community itself had already dealt with the inappropriate !vote comments. Leaky  Caldron  17:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly., you're generalising from the particular. Some of us are saying that it was overdone. That does n't mean that we're all saying that nothing should be done at all. --Stfg (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Edited 28 Dec to insert a necessary "not". Sigh! --Stfg (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Or the candidate can just not answer extra questions. Why do we need to start redacting them? Maybe a particular extra question was pertinent and the candidate wants to give an answer, and maybe someone else kept within the limit but asked useless/boilerplate questions that the candidate wishes to avoid. Overuse of questions is annoying, yes, but hardly the reason why RfA as an environment is so negative, and preventing people from asking the candidate about things doesn't suddenly resolve their concerns. — Earwig   talk  19:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is plainly a consensus for a limit on questions. We have no backbone if we don't enforce the limit and let people keep asking extra questions. If we let the extra questions stay, and the candidate doesn't answer them, then I can just imagine the questioner saying: "Oppose. The candidate did not answer my question." Since we apparently allow people to oppose for any reason they want, and all proposals to limit the opposition somewhat inevitably fail, this vote would be perfectly legitimate. In this way, the whole point of a question limit would be nullified. Biblio  worm  20:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is clearly consensus in favor of fewer questions, but it doesn't follow that this should be an enforced limit; it could simply function as a social agreement. The questioner might oppose on grounds of non-response, but the argument that significant opposition mounts as a result seems entirely theoretical. (Example of a successful RfA with a handful of opposes over non-answers.) A candidate can simply note that they've seen the question but choose not to answer it, if leaving questions untouched seems too rude. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's clear to me that many of the voters below in the oppose section did not read the entire page before voting. Here we see user opposing based on the idea that it would create some new group of editors, which is obviously not the case if you read the entire page. It may even make sense to strike some of these votes and let them place a new vote that demonstrates that they understand this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would have? RfA has been the one venue for years where people can be as nasty or as stupid as they like with total impunity. Some who opposes the need for clerks are scared of having their unsupervised schoolyard taken away from them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your lack of faith in the ability of your fellow editors to contribute to a discussion disappointing. I find your suggestion that their comments are "struck" disgraceful. I found your top-posting of your comment in this section completely inappropriate and disrespectful, so I moved it here, where it belongs. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A classic case of community clerking in action. Thank you! Leaky  Caldron  14:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave me alone. I'm looking for the "moved something obviously inappropriate" log right now, and hoping I don't need to pass an election to annotate it with my action. Bully. :) Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you must be one of these new prefects I've been reading about. Congratulations! Leaky  Caldron  23:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for moving it where it belonged, for the sake of democracy. One person, one vote, even if we are all misguided sheep ;). Zezen (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oiyarbepsy, this proposal seems pretty clear to me. "...there will be certain users called "clerks" at RfA, who will have the authority..." that sounds exactly like a new group of editors. People with authority? Certain users? I.e., not all users. Thus, this IS a new group of editors. My oppose stands. If you seriously think it would be a good idea to strike opposes because they don't agree with your interpretation of the proposal, you're going to find this going up in a ball of flames faster than it already is. I strongly, emphatically encourage you to not do that. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why we're re-litigating the basic point of 2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC here. It passed with almost a 2/3 majority. Errant's closing statement put it in the 'mixed' group, but it's not really that mixed that we need to rehash it from the root. I'm afraid dissecting it like this is not actually conducive to building consensus, rather it's a way to ruin the chance to build it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote count doth not a consensus make. What Errant said in closing was "This was a nuanced discussion. I think the community would like to discuss the idea of clerking at the next stage of the RFC. The valid concerns are that it would lead to stifling of discussion and force !votes to be less candid. So these are things to look out for in the next phase." Which is exactly what we are doing. --Stfg (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we don't need 80% consensus for everything, but more importantly, if this ends up with e.g. 55% oppose now, I sincerely doubt any closer will even consider saying anything other than that this whole thing has necessarily failed, lest they be crucified for failing at basic math. But it hasn't - we already decided that! Many opposing !votes are worried about excess bureaucracy, yet we're already indulging in an unnecessarily bureaucratic approach that gets more convoluted with every iteration. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the main purpose of RFA clerks to wave about their sheriff's badge and tell people what to do at RFAs? Do we need that? Stifle (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Implementation details
In this section, we will discuss the methods by which clerks will record their actions and be held accountable to the community. This section is not for discussing whether we should have clerks. Please use the "Basic proposal" section for that purpose.

Clerk accountability
Clerks should log all actions in the clerk actions log, which will be located at the bottom of each main RfA page. All clerk actions are subject to scrutiny, and may be undone if there is consensus to do so. Also, clerks may not edit-war or perform clerk actions to gain an advantage over other participants. However, clerk actions should not be reverted without consensus to do so. If an editor disagrees with a clerk action, they may challenge it at the clerks' noticeboard (preferably after consulting with the clerk), placing a note after the action in the clerk actions log. If there is a rough consensus to undo the action, then uninvolved bureaucrats may undo the action and should note this in the clerk log.

Notation and logging
All clerk actions will be noted and logged in a section (located at the bottom of the main RfA page) called "Clerk actions and requests". The Rfan template (RfA note) will be expanded to include all clerk actions approved by this RfC and its documentation will be expanded accordingly; a new template, Rfa-ca (RfA clerk action) will make logging uniform.

New pages
The Requests for adminship page will briefly discuss clerking, linking to a more detailed guideline/policy on clerking located at Requests for adminship/Clerking (which will be formulated according the the results of this RfC). Additionally, the following pages would be created:
 * Requests for adminship/Clerking noticeboard (WP:RFA/CN, WP:RFACN) - the "clerk's noticeboard" as described in the "Clerk accountability" section.

Support implementation

 * 1) Support I support the procedures that should be followed, rather than a special kind of user. I am not so keen on the special notice board. I think that discussion can take place on existing boards, and for a particular RFA on its talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Despite my oppose !vote to the overall process, I concur that a standard process for logging clerk actions needs to be in place if this RfC succeeds. A process mirroring the ArbCom clerking process would be sufficient. — Jkudlick t c s 08:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose implementation

 * 1) Oppose Too bureaucratic. Will appeal to a certain "type". Not a bad "type" but will put off perfectly capable moderators. Leaky  Caldron  15:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as completely unnecessary bureaucracy that further complicates the RfA process. The closer should note that these vote/discussion sections were added after the start of the discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to self: they were added in these edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per all of the above. SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose too complicated. No need to log everything separately, just leave a clear edit summary. If there is need of discussion, it can be taken up on the talk page. Community and crat informal oversight should be ample. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, as it's redundant. Such actions will already be logged; just hit Ctrl+H and ENTER (if you're using a Windows machine) to view the log of actions.  Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Needless complication, that would not improve anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Piling on is no fun, but really, let's not do this; we do not need a special log or noticeboard for this. — Earwig   talk  22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose needless "paperwork" creation. — xaosflux  Talk 19:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - too bureaucratic, and like this RfC, too convoluted to be successful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Nyttend. —Kusma (t·c) 17:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Oppose position in theory per above and creation of an even more esoteric ballet of bureaucracy in particular. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose This role is very simple and does not need loads of pages to describe what it does. A bit over the top for me. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - reasonable editors would leave a suitable edit summary ("strike IP !vote" etc) and unreasonable editors would "forget" to put an entry in the clerking log. DexDor(talk) 13:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - as per above: the 'baddies' would disregard the process, so we would need Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ad infinitum. It is better (but how, am not sure] to educate/weed out the baddies among us at the start, maybe via automatic judging the experience in editing.Zezen (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose I have read this several times and it seems to be unnecessarily complicated if all the clerks are going to be doing are simple cleanup and other administrative-assistant type tasks. If absolutely necessary to track what clerks are doing, can't this be done by simply looking at the change log on a page or the activity log for a user? The very idea of a clerk having to log every simple little thing and have it subjected to scrutiny makes my head hurt. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. These actions don't need to be logged.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Definitely not; this entire proposal is misguided, and this particular would be an extension of bureaucracy to a ridiculous level ~ a log to notate every action taken? when anyone is free to clerk, and every action is already clear in history. Oppose cheers, LindsayHello 20:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about implementation

 * I don't see the need to have a clerk log for this, it seems quite excruciatingly bureaucratic. Just note "clerk action" in your edit summary, or whatever. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ^What he said. In all seriousness, RfA candidates and voters should already know how to read the history of pages. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically what we need is a subset of experienced, neutral editors who will (a) identify the people who're always being a dick at RfA and then (b) stop them being dicks at RfA. Their powers would be (1) to delete dickishness from an RfA; (2) to ban people from participating in a particular RfA where they're being a dick; or (3) to ban people who're being very dickish from participating at RfA at all for a period of time.  People who're a bit dickish could be banned for a week and people who're colossal dicks could be banned for a year or more.  There's no need to codify it any more than that.— S Marshall  T/C 19:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a clerk log, it should be attached to the RfA in question, not all lumped together in a huge page covering hundreds of them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A: Responsibilities of clerks
In this section, we will discuss the responsibilities of clerks. You may vote for or against multiple options.

A1: General cleanup
Clerks will be responsible for cleaning up the RfA main page, specifically moving lengthy threads to the talk page and ensuring that the talk page guidelines are followed.

Support A1

 * 1) clearly this would be a key role. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs)
 * Yep. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Indenting myself. I don't see the benefit to restricting this activity to clerks. Any user can already do this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This would be the most obvious role of a RfA clerk, if only to keep the main page from getting too cluttered. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. --Stfg (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Tiggerjay (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Suppport Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support already done "unofficially", it'd be good to have it logged -- samtar whisper 07:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.  Unconstructive threads need to be moved to the talk page before they derail RfAs and cause even more drama.  Like Samtar says, the unofficial clerking is working well enough, but this will head off "there's no consensus for clerking" arguments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - these long discussions actually detract from the RFA, where a usr wants to get a good ides of what other users think about the user. A single long thread would tend to be too distracting from that purpose. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, as one of the basic clerk tasks. Biblio  worm  16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Yep. --QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 07:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Yup. —Kusma (t·c) 17:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, on the condition that non-clerks can perform this task at any time without unfair judgement. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support to the extent of designating specific people to have regular responsibilities to do this, as long as editors aren't forced into a position of needing to contact a clerk just to get this done. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support This is the most useful task active clerking could perform, imo.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose A1

 * 1) I oppose the creation of a new user group for this purpose. Needless complexity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Trytofish. BMK (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Andrew D. (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose creating a specific group and associated bureaucracy to do this. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Appointing busybodies to impose their will on RfA participants is not needed and would oppose all the norms of Wikipedia. The proposition that someone wanting to be an administrator needs to be cosseted from the rough and tumble that occurs on every other noticeboard is absurd. If a participant is so over-the-top that clerking would be desirable, an admin should just collapse or remove the offending text and block if a warning is ignored. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) per all above.  Leaky  Caldron  15:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose not against moving long/off topic comments, but against having to have this only be done by specific "clerks". — xaosflux  Talk 19:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per my statements in the basic section. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose moving discussion is contrary to informed voting. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per Tryptofish, and comments above; cheers, LindsayHello 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Support allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A1)

 * 1) To a limited extent, and subject to scrutiny and reversion, rather than to the logging procedures and so forth proposed above. Basically, the status quo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support status quo on this one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support status quo on this one. I don't see a need to create a new user group for it (and don't see where that was proposed). Anyone should be able to do this subject to the usual scrutiny. --Stfg (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't see where this has been a major problem. BMK (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) This is not arbitration, where things have to be official and courtroom-like: anyone who knows how to handle this should be doing it (admins, IPs, and everyone in between), without designating a special group of users. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) This is the status quo and I am not seeing any problems with it. To my mind such basic cleanup need not be separately logged, just write "hatted/moved to the talk page by example because it was discussing tropical fish" or the like. That will make it really obvious what was done and why. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) That is any editor in good standing. Along with the extra procedures, any capable and wise person should be able to do this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) It's working OK so far. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) agree with status quo.  Leaky  Caldron  16:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Obviously, as written.  When apparently not so obvious in hindsight, when disputed, the matter should be decided by a clerk or bureaucrat.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 07:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Sure. — xaosflux  Talk 19:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support . This is what we've always been doing already - well, sometimes... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Of course. —Kusma (t·c) 17:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support If it ain't broke, don't open a multi-level RFC on it [[file:face-grin.svg|28px]]. -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per my comment above. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - This already occurs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — Jkudlick t c s 08:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per my comment above. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) Support continuing this way; it may not be perfect, but it works ~ better than the alternatives this RfC offers; cheers, LindsayHello 21:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A1)

 * 1) Andrew D. (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This is the status quo, but I'm afraid that I disagree with it. Not particularly strongly, but just enough to comment here. I used to think otherwise, but my current train of thought is: people don't have to read anything on the RfA page before voting themselves; if they want to read !votes then why wouldn't they want to read replies to the votes and discussion; what is the point in spending time making it harder to follow discussion; I thought RfA was a discussion not a vote. The only possible reason I can think of to move discussion to the talk page is to make the RfA page shorter, and easier to load, for those of us whose internet access is perhaps not the best. But no-one's ever mentioned this during recent discussion of the subject, to my knowledge, and I don't think this would be the best way to solve the problem of RfA pages becoming too large. Despite my objection to the principle of clerking, oddly enough I'd prefer it if A1 passed for clerks, so it would at least limit the amount of people that can move comments around. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about A1

 * Your "oppose" comments says you oppose creating a new user group. Do you oppose creating a new "technical user-rights group" (like reviewer, rollbacker, etc.) or do you oppose creating a new "bureaucracy user group" (like SPI clerks or ARBCOM clerks).  If it's the first one, I don't think anyone is suggesting adding a new "technical user-right."  If it's the second one, please clarify so nobody else is confused in the same way that I am.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about technical things, like changing a setting on user rights. It's about increasing the complexity of procedures, roughly similar to instruction creep, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A2: Managing questions
Clerks will be able to enforce any community-approved limits on the number of questions that may be asked. Optional provision: Clerks are authorized to remove questions that indisputably inappropriate, such as ones that are simply jokes, silly, or completely irrelevant to the candidate's suitability for adminship (such as questions that ask the candidate's personal opinion on a non-Wikipedia matter). (Note: If you support this optional provision, please indicate this in your support vote. You may support the first part without supporting the optional provision.)

Support A2

 * 1) this will be a key function, enforcing community consensus on questions, which has been a serious issue in the past with boilerplate question lists. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC) For clarity, I don't support the optional bit. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 01:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support enforcing community-approved limits on the number of questions asked. No comment on removing inappropriate questions. clpo13(talk) 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the enforcement of community-approved limits, but strong oppose the optional provision. We don't need anyone making officious judgements about what is "appropriate". --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support with an oppose on the optional provision. Let the nom handle those types of questions as best they see fit. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support without the optional, although in light of my vote up above, I support the idea of any editor being able to do this, without appointing a specific group of editors to be the clerks. This is a really basic thing to enforce; if we could automatically identify who was asking what, and how many questions each person had asked, it could be done by a bot.  Identification of a question as inappropriate should only be done by community consensus, unless it's so blatant that the user gets blocked for general disruption and/or incivility.  Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support since if we have policy, we need someone to enforce it. Partial support the optional proposal. I agree for removing blatantly uncivil questions, or completely off topic questions, or questions of a harrassing nature. However, jokes and silliness can be good if made and taken as such. The nom should feel free to ignore borderline innapropriate questions. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support for the first part, and oppose for the second part of the proposal. Candidates should feel free to not answer questions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support first part, oppose second until/unless we can get a reasonable consensus on what questions are disallowed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support enforcing community-endorsed limits. Very strongly oppose anyone removing votes questions without discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support the first part and strongly support the optional provision, although I also agree that candidates should start using more discretion when answering questions and give joke/silly/irrelevant questions the level of attention they deserve (e.g., none). Biblio  worm  16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support without support for option provision, crats can just disregard those questions. --QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) —Kusma (t·c) 17:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, both. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, in the form that removal is simply hatting the question and not wiping it off the users' RfA, especially if it turns into some sort of drama. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Support the first part since discussions need to come to an end sometime. Oppose the second part as it's basically censorship. Would be better for candidate to just not answer, and if the question is truly inappropriate then the community can easily see that without a clerk injecting judgment as to appropriateness.TheBlinkster (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose A2

 * 1) Oppose creation of the user group per what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Tryptofish. I have no intention of constantly badgering voters here, but I would just note that if we create new limits on questioning (which is looking very likely, per the Phase II RfC), then someone must enforce it. I suppose you would advocate the status quo of anyone being able to do so? Biblio  worm  23:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'd rather not create a new layer of user groups, so yes, I would be OK with the status quo of anyone doing it. But for the specific point about the questions to candidates, I actually think that the best thing is for the RfA candidate to take the lead. By showing how they handle the questions, they can demonstrate how they would handle being an admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Andrew D. (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per response to A1. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) as above  Leaky  Caldron  15:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per my statements in the basic section. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose If a candidate doesn't like a question, they don't have to answer. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Support allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A2)

 * 1) Support with regards to the community approved limits. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't like the idea of clerks but I don't like the idea of going against the consensus that 2 questions should be the limit either, which leaves me in this rather awkward place. I would recommend that there is a discussion on the talk page for non-"clear cases", since I can't think of any better way to handle them. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Any editor should be allowed to clerk anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 17:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I would hope that a user would stick to the rule of it being a clear case. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - The community should be able to police itself here. If it comes to the point that things are getting out of hand, then it's time for the admins to break out the mop. — Jkudlick t c s 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support for the first part only. I already oppose the second part and it would be a strong oppose if any old editor, not just clerks, were to decide when something was "inappropriate" and needed to be removed.TheBlinkster (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A2)

 * 1) This would create needless drama. Better that the RfA candidates demonstrate discretion in how they do or do not respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Questions are sometimes subtle or out of left field.  Short of vandalism or disruption, there are no such clear cases.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I oppose allowing "any" editor to do this, but not "every" editor. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Tryptofish. Let the candidate be in control of his or her responses to questions. -- Avi (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about A2

 * I'm puzzled as to how to vote here, because there are actually two proposals. I want to support enforcement of community consensus on questions (allowing anyone to do this, not a special user group) and opp*aose allowing anyone to make individual judgement calls on personal opinion of what is "appropriate". For eample, I think the candidtate should be left to deal with jokes as s/he sees fit. --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC) OK, I get it now :) --Stfg (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would note that there is already quite plainly consensus for a question limit, and we are definitely not re-voting on that here. Even if the clerking proposal fails, someone will have to enforce the clearly agreed-upon limit (we're not going to abandon the clear consensus in the almost-ended high-participation RfC), but since this would be very straightforward I'm sure there would be no objection to anyone doing enforcing the limit on questions, as long as the limit is clearly defined (which it will be).  Biblio  worm  03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A3: Civility and decorum
Clerks are authorized to redact portions of comments/votes that contain incivility and/or personal attacks. Clerks may redacted the entire comment/vote if it consists entirely of incivility or personal attacks. Definitions concerning what constitutes incivility and personal attacks can be found here (for incivility) and here (for personal attacks).

Support A3

 * 1) Yep. Self-evident that this will be necessary to reduce the hostility in the RfA environment. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Instead of needing to have a long discussion, this would very much be helpful. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Definitely a good job for clerks of non-admin and admin status alike, so long as the definitions of incivility/personal attacks are clear. clpo13(talk) 23:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. --Stfg (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support RfA is rare in that we are actually supposed to comment on the contributor. We need people with the community mandate to say what goes too far. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support at current, suggest requirement to give detailed rationale for removal -- samtar whisper 07:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) This only reaffirms site-wide policy.  There's too much hazing going on, and if qualified candidates choose not to run, we have a problem.  Voters should judge a candidate's temperament by examining contributions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I believe this to be a necessary evil. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - any user can do this already. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Indenting because any user can do this already, so I'm against making it a right exclusive to clerks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Obviously, this will be one of the most critical clerking tasks. Biblio  worm  16:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support This could/should be done by anyone, in fact. --QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) I see a difficulty in editors removing inappropriate comments from an RFA where they have !voted, especially if they have voted the other way. Neutral clerks would solve that problem. Some RFA comments have been quite bizarre, and the de facto exemption of RFA from usual civility standards detracts from its true role as a process for vetting potential admins - at least one unsuitable admin was appointed because an oppose was so toxic it was ignored.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as I already did at 2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Since when was RfA not bound by the policies of the site? Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I thought this was already a policy and that any user could and should do it, not just clerks. However, as I've said for some other functions it might help to have some dedicated people with the function/ responsibility specifically of keeping an eye on it. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose A3

 * 1) Per what I said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Andrew D. (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, per response to A1. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) An RfA may be the only opportunity to see how a candidate reacts under pressure, and that is the most import part of handling the job. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Doesn't sound like something that should be treated any differently at RfA than anywhere else.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per my statements in the basic section. -- Avi (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose enforcing WP:NPA and WP:IUP doesn't require special permission. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Some users have very differing opinions on what constitutes 'civility'. Some users go so far as to say make liberal use of the term 'personal attack' to quiet those with differing views. If this is limited to comments on votes being moved to talk, I'm okay with that, but deleting or striking someones vote over civility goes TOO FAR. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A3)

 * 1) This is the status quo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) So it is, and yes, subject (obviously) to scrutiny. --Stfg (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Only in very clear cases. Opposers need to be allowed to criticize the candidate. Extreme cases can be dealt with by anyone, but more subjective cases should only be handled by people with sufficient community trust. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Most of the time personal attacks are obvious.  Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) This works OK now. Change patrollers should be able to step in and do this too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) If it's obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support status quo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support As pointed out by Tryptofish.--QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support any good faith edits. — xaosflux  Talk 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Continuing status quo with regards to clear violations, and reinforcing curation role of bureaucrats during the discussion as per my statements in Basic section. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) This is the current system. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Support as editors should all feel free to follow the policy of the site and perform good faith removals of material that violates the policy. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) Support  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A3)

 * 1) Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Too likely to have users remove borderline cases which shouldn't be removed, and claiming that it was a clear case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose One editor's "clear case" might be another's borderline "meh." This would best be left to either admins or, if this passes, the clerks. — Jkudlick t c s 08:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about A3

 * Except as it would rise to revision-deletable material (which should be removed completely and revision-deleted) I would only support redacting the text of the attack and replacing it with a simple "support/oppose/neutral" followed by a doclink to a previous edit which contained the pre-redacted text. Why keep the "support/oppose/neutral"?  Because being a jerk oops I mean appending an attack or uncivil comment does not forfeit your right to have your "!vote" (or is that your "vote") count, and leaving the link to the previous version will give bureaucrats the needed visibility to the previous edit so they can give the !vote the weight they think it deserves (which may be almost zero) if the RFA winds up in the discretionary range.  Also, notwithstanding any other changes made as a result of this RFC, I would also explicitly allow the editor who is still in good standing and who wishes to formally retract his earlier words and whose comment was replaced by a "placeholder link" to either put an ... around the "placeholder link" or going all-out and restoring the original text and surround it with ... .  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Biblio  worm  23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a very big gap between civility and incivility. Decorum is very hard to define.  A3 is poorly titled.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A4: Voting (I)
Clerks are authorized to remove votes that they deem inappropriate; this includes: (1) obvious joke votes; (2) votes that were cast citing only a personal conflict; (3) votes that merely cite the candidate's disagreement with a personal opinion of the voter.

Support A4

 * Provisional support - if and only if the community decides on criteria for removing votes from an RfA, then this is a task which should be performed by clerks, and not just anyone. However I suspect that agreement on criteria is a very long way off, and as such I'm leaving my comment in the oppose section as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually no, that's not how this question was phrased. Clerks shouldn't be deeming things anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose A4

 * 1) This is a task for Crats. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose but mostly on the grounds that I disagree with the criteria. Editors should be and historically are entitled to oppose RfAs for whatever reason short of clear vandalism and personal attacks, and to my recollection our recent discussions about imposing bounds on oppose rationales have ended without consensus. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose per Ivanvector. --Stfg (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely not BMK (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose as per others, but also because to lesser degree, these are also the reason why many people support noms. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Andrew D. (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose "This editor was very rude to me in this conflict" is a valid vote if it implies that the voter expects the candidate will be rude to others. Similarly, policy disagreements, if combined with unilateral application of weird policy interpretations can be a valid reason to oppose. Discuss it, but let the crats decide. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose a job for the 'crats. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - This is what we have the "crats" for. Guy1890 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Absolutely not. Editors have the right to oppose for any reason that seems good to them. Bureaucrats are already empowered to disregard such comments if they consider it necessary. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Was this a serious proposal? Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose conflicts are a valid reason to have an opinion for a vote. We only seem to have joke votes on April Fools day. I am sure Bureaucrats know what to do with them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, but only because I think 'crats should handle this. However, unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't seem that they do this very actively, so I strongly believe that the 'crats should step up more and discount inappropriate or unreasonable rationales. It seems that the general attitude now is that someone could demand 10 FAs and have it counted as a real oppose vote. I strongly disagree with the notion that people should be able to oppose just for any reason they want to, regardless of its propriety or rationality (I know people will say that this is subjective, but really, just use common sense). Biblio  worm  17:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) No.  This would not be clerking.  It is beyond moderating.  It is controlling.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Too far. — Earwig   talk  04:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Crats already disregard such votes and also the fact that we shouldn't support censorship. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong Oppose - not needed, nonconstructive discussion can already be ignored by crats. — xaosflux  Talk 19:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose This is part of the process to determine community consensus which is the primary role of the English Wikipedia bureaucrat. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose The closing 'crat(s) are the ones who place weight on a !vote. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose It's the job of the 'crats to weigh the !votes, not other editors or admins. — Jkudlick t c s 08:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong oppose These are supposed to be clerks, not judges. I see clerks as doing minor cleanup tasks, not "deeming" votes inappropriate or not. That is not their job. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose No. Emphatically no. Several other users have elucidated on my views well enough I need not repeat.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A4)

 * 1) This is a task for Crats. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - This is what we have the "crats" for. Guy1890 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) agreed.  Leaky  Caldron  15:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose any editor doing this, even 'crats, per myself. We haven't agreed on criteria for when a vote is clearly invalid, short of clear vandalism which anyone may revert. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per my oppose in the first half of this. — xaosflux  Talk 19:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose This is part of the process to determine community consensus which is the primary role of the English Wikipedia bureaucrat. If there is something obvious, continue the current process of notifying bureaucrats through use of small text underneath opinion in question. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about A4

 * Support any editor reverting obvious "clueless" votes like "# How do I become an admin?" (or for that matter outright vandalism). As for anything that indicates the edit was made with the intent of participating in this person's RFA, I'm leaning toward opposing allowing non-crats to make these changes. I would favor allowing any crat to "put on their clerk hat" and edit out such votes if they were causing disruptions at a particular RFA.  By "put on their clerk hat" I mean logging the edit as if it were an "official clerk edit."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If this were about trolling, misplaced comments, vandalism, and intentional attempts to disrupt the RfA, that could work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A5: Voting (II)
In addition to the above, clerks are authorized to remove a vote based on blatantly unreasonable rationales. Examples include: (1) votes that merely cite an isolated mistake; (2) votes that demand obviously unreasonable things of the candidate, such as many FAs, many years of experience (a few years, such as two or even three, does not qualify as blatantly unreasonable), a blatantly unreasonable and arbitrary percentage of edits in a certain namespace, or an extremely high edit count (such as tens of thousands).

Support A5

 * 1) One of the worst aspects of RFA is that half the disputes are not about whether that particular candidate is ready, but whether anyone should be expected to meet a particular criteria before becoming an admin. This proposal puts the cart before the horse, and we would need to agree a criteria for adminship before we could enforce it in such a way. But since I'm in favour of determining such a criteria and separating the two debates I do support this in principle. However until we have a consensus based criteria it would be difficult to see which arguments met this test, other of course than people who oppose candidates for following a policy that they disagree with.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose A5

 * 1) Even though some users do not like the amount of FA or good articles, some users do and I feel like we should let them have their opinion even if we disagree. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a task for Crats. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per what I said to "Voting I". The community has not determined what acceptable limits on oppose rationales are. This is putting the cart before the horse. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong oppose per Ivanvector. --Stfg (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Again, absolutely not People vote for all sorts of reasons, and this should be allowed. If they're mistaken, well, then they're mistaken, Wikipedia isn't going to implode because someone votes for a reason someone else feels is "invalid".  That this ever reached the point of being discussed is extremely disturbing. BMK (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose until there is a strong consensus on a very specific criteria for RfA... and then only for people blatantly disregarding that specific criteria. But since that is unlikely to occur, this will stand as an oppose. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose; as noted above, this is a job for bureaucrats. Bureaucrats need to ignore votes that don't attempt to show why a successful RFA would be harmful to the project, votes that portray admin tools as a big deal when it's not.  Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Andrew D. (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, given that we don't have a policy prohibiting "blatantly unreasonable" votes. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose We would need community approval of what unreasonable means first. I say trust the crats. My criteria of "patient with newbies and anons" might even be viewed as unreasonable by some, while I hold their "5 FA" criteria to be exorbitant. Hopefully, with higher and more diverse participation, we will have varying criteria with varying strictness being applied and will end up passing the right people. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) "Unreasonable rationales" could be anything. This will give too much power to the clerk.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose I don't think defining "reasonable" is realistic. There are plenty of negative voting rationales that I consider ridiculous, but whilst I am clearly not an orphan, people are entitled to vote the way they do based on whatever they think is a reasonable basis for voting. Surely the 'crats can handle this type of thing in weighing the votes (where it is a close-run thing). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - I feel pretty strongly that commenters at RfA should be able to "vote" however they want to, but we also have the "crats" which can, if need be, weigh the arguments behind any vote (for or against a particular candidate) appropriately. Guy1890 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - I think only our 'crats should remove votes that are anything beyond obvious vandalism, etc. — xaosflux  Talk 03:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Absolutely not. Editors have the right to oppose for any reason that seems good to them. Bureaucrats are already empowered to disregard such comments if they consider it necessary. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose These are all valid reasons to have an oppose vote. Each can have their own criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) perfect recipe for drama - not less.  Leaky  Caldron  15:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, per my response to A4. Biblio  worm  17:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Unreasonable rationales should be criticised by other !voters (from within their own !vote, not threaded), and should be judged by the closing bureaucrat in what is their core role.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) 'Crats are smart people, and know how to read a discussion. We don't need to hide stuff from them or other users, unless it's so vile and ridiculous that redaction is necessary. — Earwig   talk  04:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose As I said in the previous proposal (A4). --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose This is part of the process to determine community consensus which is the primary role of the English Wikipedia bureaucrat. If there is something obvious, continue the current process of notifying bureaucrats through use of small text underneath opinion in question. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose These sorts of !votes can and will cause drama; that is the time the clerk must step in. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose - It's the job of the 'crats to weigh !votes. — Jkudlick t c s 08:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose Slippery slope as to what is unreasonable. Not the job of clerks who perform general "cleanup" functions to be making a judgment call on this. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose No. Emphatically no. Several other users have elucidated on my views well enough I need not repeat.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A5)

 * 1) This is a task for Crats. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Even crats should not remove votes, except for sockpuppets and trolls, although it is in their purview to ignore votes when assessing those RfAs which end up in the discretionary range. BMK (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Andrew D. (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I feel pretty strongly that commenters at RfA should be able to "vote" however they want to, but we also have the "crats" which can, if need be, weigh the arguments behind any vote (for or against a particular candidate) appropriately. Guy1890 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) !vote - Voting oppose for the proposal makes voting oppose here again unnecessary. More like a fail-safe, but still unnecessary (since it's obviously getting snowballed). --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T  &#10052;  C ) 08:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per my response in the other half of this section. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose This is part of the process to determine community consensus which is the primary role of the English Wikipedia bureaucrat. If there is something obvious, continue the current process of notifying bureaucrats through use of small text underneath opinion in question. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong oppose Given that I oppose letting even a presumably trained clerk judge on this, I certainly oppose allowing just any editor off the street to censor things based on individual arbitrary judgment. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about A5

 * Leaning oppose for the rationales given, but would support allowing clerk-removals of the content of the !vote (along with linking to a previous revision - see my comments in "vandalism" above) if the rationale were blatantly and provably not even close to being true, such as "oppose, only has 500 edits" when the editor has 5000 edits, or blatantly completely irrelevant to being a Wikipedia editor, like "oppose, editor has (or doesn't have) a Facebook account." davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As RfAs are currently run, the typical response is for another user to reply explaining how they are mistaken. As RfAs are a discussion, I think that's sufficient. Why do we need to refactor? What difference does it make? 'Crats are smart people, doing more than just a vote count. —  Earwig   talk 04:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A6: Stopping RfAs pending closure
Clerks are authorized to halt any further votes on RfAs that are past their scheduled ending time and are pending closure by a bureaucrat.

Support A6

 * 1) Qualified support but would strongly prefer they do this only if a 'crat has publicly has asked them to do so for that particular RFA. Example: "['crat request on RFA or its talk page]:  This RFA will close when most 'crats are pre-occupied.  Clerks are requested to mark it as "closing" any time after [scheduled closing time] provided there have been no edits in the previous 15 minutes."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think all RfAs should be closed for voting the second the clock has run down. Otherwise there is scope for ballot stuffing either way. But in reality, such voting cut-offs should be automated if possible then left for a 'crat to close on the merits of the RfA. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support needed to prevent the further escalation of RfA Drama -- samtar whisper 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - yes, I think that expired RfAs should stop immediately, and further comments on the main page should be reverted. Otherwise, how long after an RfA is closed can users continue to post bolded !votes in the discussion? The closing and pending time is meant for the 'crats to review what are consistently among the most contentious debates on the project. Reviewing them while they're still going on throws a lot of doubt into the process. I would support allowing 'crat-endorsed extensions if a discussion is fairly active (relisting RfAs?) but I think that closed should mean closed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I thought this would pass quite easily. In my view, RfAs have a scheduled ending time and they should stop at that ending time, with no further participation allowed. Biblio  worm  17:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support If there is a scheduled close time, then it should close at that scheduled close time and not later. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose A6

 * 1) Crats can decide whether or not to count late !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed they can, and since that is essentially what they are elected for, and nobody else is, they are the only ones who should. --Stfg (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) See no need to take this authority away from bureaucrats. BMK (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) As Tryptofish said. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Andrew D. (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, this is a bureaucrat function. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose It should be OK to sneak in a late vote, if consideration and counting has not commenced. I would expect a bureaucrat to add a closing tag if they want to stop more voter activity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - As long as the 'crats haven't started determining the verdict, votes should be allowed, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; any vote cast after a 'crat started determining the verdict may be ignored. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. There is no fundamental rule or need for discussion to cease at 7 days.  If that's how the 'crats want to run it, that's up to them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) This is very clearly within the purview of bureaucrats, and is this even a problem ever? — Earwig   talk  04:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Come on. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose we don't need special clerks to do this, crats can handle it. — xaosflux  Talk 19:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose This is part of the process to determine community consensus which is the primary role of the English Wikipedia bureaucrat. Historical precedent is to generally allow for votes to be counted as long as the discussion is not closed, and there are some (rare) situations in which burecrats may decide that community consensus can be better obtained by intentionally extending the discussion period. See Question 12 and Requests for adminship/Salvidrim!/Bureaucrat discussion, for potential and actual example respectively. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose 'crats already do this. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) It isn't often that something happens late in an RFA that merits leaving that RFA open a little longer, but it does occasionally happen and this is one of the few things about RFA that works and does not need reform.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose WP:NODEADLINE. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Suppose the 'crats are in discussion whether to keep the RfA open past the deadline when a clerk marks it as "closing." Perhaps the !votes which would sway the decision one way or the other would not be cast. Since the 'crats make the final decision, it should be their job to close the discussion. — Jkudlick t c s 08:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Crats can just ignore these votes if they deem it appropriate. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose allowing any editor to perform this task in clear cases (A6)

 * 1) Crats can decide whether or not to count late !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose per my rationale above. --Stfg (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Extremely strong oppose BMK (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Andrew D. (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose no way, we don't need anyone acting as timecops. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Either this is snow closed, or not now closed or it is closed by a Bureaucrat. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose "any editor" - if this is a thing we're going to do, then it should be done by a set of users selected for the task. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per section above. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A7: RfB clerking
Clerks will be allowed to clerk RfBs, in addition to RfAs.

Support A7

 * Yes, to the extent -- and only to the extent -- that they may clerk RfAs. --Stfg (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I assumed this was implied. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, as long as anyone's allowed to do the clerking, per my vote at A1. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, under the restrictions as in RfA. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes if we ever see one again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) If anyone ever runs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, but as others have mentioned I'm not sure we'll ever have another RfB (much less a successful one!). Biblio  worm  17:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the previous five RfBs have all been successful. — Earwig   talk  04:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, there is no reason why clerks should be restricted to RfAs. If this is successful, the procedures for running RfBs and RfAs should be as similar as possible. Don't need to complicate things by having clerks for one and not the other. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - There is probably no significant difference in this regard between RFA and RFB. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Provisionally if the other stuff passes. I don't like the idea of clerks, but if we're going for them, I don't see the difference between RfA and RfB. — Earwig   talk  04:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Why not? --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Sure. —Kusma (t·c) 17:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Don't see the difference. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Only to the point that they clerk RfAs, assuming the overall RfC passes. — Jkudlick t c s 08:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support to the extent they can clerk RfAs and within the scope of all my previous support comments concerning clerking RfAs. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose A7

 * 1) I oppose creating such a new user group. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't necessarily be a user group. The section after this discusses whether any editor could do this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because this RfC was badly constructed. But my basic position is that any user can so-fix-it, when needed, subject to scrutiny by others, without the need to make it formal, and that goes for RfB as well as RfA. (And in a single edit, I have now listed RfA, RfB, and RfC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Andrew D. (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per my oppose to A1. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) How many RfBs occurred last week? Is there a problem, or are people being paid by the word for RfCs? Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. RfBs don't need clerking.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per my general oppose of creating RFA clerks at all. — xaosflux  Talk 19:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per my statements in the basic section. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about A7

 * Neutral but if they are allowed to do so, initially they should have the same or fewer "clerking privileges" as they would at RfA. I would also initially oppose allowing non-clerks to do "clerking" tasks at RfB other than those they/we are already allowed to do (e.g. revert obvious vandalism, etc.).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose the existence of clerks at all, but see no reason why they should not exert their authority over RfBs as well if consensus is that they should exist in RfAs. In fact, it occurs to me that I'm saying the exact same thing as Earwig above, but putting my comment in a different place. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

B: Who may clerk
In this section, we will discuss which users should be permitted to perform clerking tasks. You may vote for and against multiple options.

B1: Bureaucrats
Note: If you support authorizing any other group to clerk RfAs, also specify if you support or oppose having bureaucrats oversee RfA clerking.

Support B1

 * 1) This makes sense, 'crats oversee clerks. But if 'crats do the clerking, who is overseeing the 'crats? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support bureaucrats overseeing clerk actions, admin and non-admin alike. clpo13(talk) 23:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, including overseeing other clerking. --Stfg (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) All 'crats should be able to act as clerks.  When acting as clerks, they should be expected to log edits as if any other clerk made them.  I also support them supervising non-crat clerks.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oversight from 'crats makes sense. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Of course, as long as supporting this doesn't mean that others can't. We trust bureaucrats to determine consensus, so telling them not to clerk (if they want to) would be absurd.  And they might as well oversee others' clerking, e.g. if someone's making a mess (whether in bad faith or in cluelessness), telling them to knock it off, and blocking them if they don't stop.  Peacemaker67, see Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.  Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Of course they are supposed to be making all the tough RFA calls, so this is right up their alley. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9)  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Seems like the best solution - they make all the official decisions regarding RFA. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Don't the 'crats already "clerk"? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Of course bureaucrats may clerk, or moderate, or even other things, as long as they don't interfere with a discussion that they may close.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Sure, though not necessarily exclusively. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Already the case. Shouldn't be a need to re-affirm this. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) If we insist on a formal designation... yes; this or no strict requirements. — Earwig   talk  04:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Crats overseeing clerking. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Restating my opinion at the basic section: "What would be preferable, in my opinion, would be for the project members to accept more active curation of discussion by the bureaucrats without such curation affecting said bureaucrat's ability to close the discussion. If this kind of curation and oversight is viewed as having implicit preference for support or opposition, then having a new class will not help claims of partiality. If it isn't, then we already have members able to do so—the bureaucrats—we just have to make clear that enforcing "order and decorum" in these requests does not render one ineligible to close the request or partake in any necessary discussions about the request." -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as the clerking 'crat is not the closer of the RfA. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as I have noted that all editors should be able to perform the clerking tasks. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose B1

 * 1) Andrew D. (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) No need to limit clerking to bureaucrats.  They will be expected to have the knowledge and clue to do the job, so they can all do it, but others can too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - If the 'crats are supposed to close the RfAs and weigh the !votes, then they need to be as uninvolved as possible. Clerking makes a 'crat inherently involved. — Jkudlick t c s 08:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bureaucrats need to stay uninvolved. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per jkudlick and Gamaliel. Bureaucrats will determine the outcome of the discussion; they should not also be involved in shaping the course of the discussion. Or if one does, he/she should not participate in determining the outcome. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about B1
Basically, the kinds of things proposed for Clerks to do are either unnecessary, or are currently done by Crats. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, I am seeing no compelling reason to create a clerk class for RfAs. (Generally, I'd say that the angst over how bad RfA is is vastly overplayed. It just ain't that bad, and we are not children, we should be able to stand a little give and take without running to mommy.) BMK (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally agree with Tryptofish. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) agree with above.  Leaky  Caldron  15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Support B2

 * 1) Support admins enforcing community-approved question limits while allowing non-admin experienced editors to perform non-controversial clerking, such as cleanup, moving long discussions to the talk page, and removing personal attacks. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Conditional support All clerks must be subject to election. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support in such that I support all good faith editors and wouldn't want to exclude admins. —  xaosflux  Talk 19:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Admins should be permitted to perform all clerking functions. Since they are not involved in the final processes of an RfA, there is no concern of involvement. — Jkudlick t c s 08:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as I have noted that all editors should be able to perform the clerking tasks. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose B2

 * 1) I don't consider this to be an area where admins have any greater merit than anyone else. All our actions are subject to scrutiny. This just tends to reinforce the unacceptable notion that admins are above the hoi polloi. --Stfg (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Andrew D. (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Giving admins more authority in running RfAs will widen the gap between admin and non-admins. Not needed at all.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Absolutely not. Admins should have no more power in RfAs than other editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) No need to limit to administrators, they can fall into the category of editors. The main requirement will be to be familiar to the clerking procedures. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose somewhat per Espresso Addict and Graeme Bartlett - I am strongly against making more permissions exclusively for admins. I'm not against admins clerking per se (I don't think admins should be forbidden from clerking) but they should clerk as editors, not as admins. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose any idea of an Admins stifling expression of opinion. Would sooner it be done by a respectful, collegiate non-Admin. rather than a mop wielding official. Leaky  Caldron  15:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose.  Admins should be less special at RfA than at any other page.  Adminship is not an admin controlled closed society and must never come anywhere near close to looking like it is. Admin functions, such as WP:Blocking for disruption at RfA should thus be more restrained, with heavier emphasis on WP:UNINVOLVED.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Admins are editors, and editors can do certain things in a consensual discussion - so Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Either bureaucrats do it—interpreting their role as overseeing community appointment of admins/'crats—or any reasonably trusted user can. —  Earwig   talk 04:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - The Earwig is on target. Carrite (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per Gizza, Espresso, etc. -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

B3: Appointment/election
Appoint a group of editors that are authorized to clerk RfAs.

Support B3

 * 1) I support the idea of clerks being appointed/elected from the admin pool. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel like this permission should be the same as RfAs. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support crat's appointing and un-appointing clerks. No need for elections, that's too much bureaucracy.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Appointment and removal by crats makes sense. The assumption would be that they clerk on behalf of the crats. Perhaps require appointment by 3 crats. Electing them sounds rather circular to me (let's improve RfA by making another RfA) . Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per my comments on talk. If there are going to be clerks and they are going to do things which could be considered controversial, then some thought should go into who the clerks can be, and there will be some users who are entirely unsuitable to the task. I strongly oppose election of clerks, however, we have enough elections and democracy doesn't solve everything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support very limited clerking, by volunteers self appointed without process, under veto by any bureaucrat who need only ask the editor to stop it.  Non-bureaucrat clerks should never do anything controversial.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Election is gonna be a headache but both appointment and election's gonna work. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support as I already did at 2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. Don't need an election, just have the bureaucrats delegate what was effectively their responsibility before. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Appointment by 'crats of trusted experienced editors. Elections would be too cumbersome and messy. — Jkudlick t c s 08:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Support People designated to do so by the community.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Bureaucrats should be able to handle this easily. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose B3

 * 1) Needless new bureaucracy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) The proposal isn't well defined -- who does the appointing or how is the election run? And yes, pointless bureaucracy. I especially oppose limiting it to the admin pool, per my comment on B2. --Stfg (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Andrew D. (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Aside from the "Optional provision" of A2, this is obvious stuff that anyone with common sense can do decently well. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. The creation of a new group of editors to do what is either done by bureaucrats already or can be done by any editor without fuss is pointless additional bureaucracy. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per what Happy Squirrel said in support. Let's make another election/appointment process to elect/appoint the overseers of our elections/appointments processes. Then who will clerk the clerks? And on and on and on .... Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indenting another one, per talk comments. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) a simply dreadful idea.  Leaky  Caldron  15:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Either bureaucrats do it—interpreting their role as overseeing community appointment of admins/'crats—or any reasonably trusted user can. — Earwig   talk  04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Oppose having to create Requests for adminship clerkship or any other sort of secondary election process. If clerks will be authorized, they should be appointed specifically by bureaucrats. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) No thanks -- nothing special about this clerking work. —Kusma (t·c) 17:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per my statements in the basic section. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose nope. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) No. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - can't editors just volunteer and maybe be approved or not approved? Clerking is not supposed to be a judgment or decision making process. No need for appointments or worse yet, elections. Too much of that around now as it is and it just keeps people from participating. TheBlinkster (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Election? God help us! Definitely not election. If the idea of designated clerks is approved (which I oppose), any bureaucrat should be able to designate a person as a clerk. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about B3

 * While I think crats should appoint clerks, there may be some tasks that are so non-controversial that the crats, as a group, would say "any editor can do this" or "any editor meeting these requirements [fill in the blank] can do this." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

B4: Any editor, subject to requirements and/or limits
Any editor may clerk RfAs, provided that they meet a certain set of requirements and/or they leave more controversial actions to the three groups above. If you support this option, specify your suggested requirement; if this is successful, closers should take a rough average of the suggested requirements.

Support B4

 * 1) I believe any experienced editor in good standing should be able to perform non-controversial clerking, such as moving long discussions to the talk page and cleaning up formatting. Enforcing question limits should be left to admin clerks to minimize complaints. Similar concept to WP:NAC, really. clpo13(talk) 23:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Same as Clpo13. Also, I would probably be a bit lighter and enforce to WP:Assume good faith. --Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Fixing formatting and moving discussions to the talk page should be done by everyone. I don't want anyone to get their fingers slapped for basic maintenance. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) I think to some extent this is already the case.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support this is roughly the definition of who should be able to do the job. The exact limits will likely be developed over time. Controversial actions should probably be talked about rather than performed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) The "requirements" are some degree of experience and apparent understanding of how this website works. It doesn't need to be codified. —  Earwig   talk 04:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, requirement: being  and making good faith edits. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support for autoconfirmed editors with a good record of good faith edits. Maybe some minimum time window like 6 months or minimum number of edits like 500 non-bot edits. I can't imagine anyone with very little experience even knowing this exists much less wanting to do it. I also think that the vast majority of clerking tasks should be "non-controversial" i.e. either cleanups like moving threads, or clear applications of Wiki policy without including all sorts of judgment calls, censorship, deletions of votes etc. as I have already said above. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose B4

 * 1) No need to have a special designation for editors who do this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Tryptofish. All editors below bureaucrats should be equal in this regard. --Stfg (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Generally oppose - I think 'crats should generally appoint clerks.  DO see my related comment in B3, appointed/elected clerks.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Andrew D. (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Per my response to B3. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Some actions can be done by any editor, without qualification, others only by bureaucrats. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose B3 is a better way to go. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per my statements in the basic section. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - The clerks should either be admins or appointed by the 'crats. An editor who meets [insert community requirements here] may be a completely ineffectual clerk, while one who doesn't meet the community requirement could be an excellent clerk. — Jkudlick t c s 08:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about B4
This questions are becoming increasingly pedestrian. Who wrote them? If feels like an endless list of increasingly unimportant questions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. It feels like this list is going on forever. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

B5: Any editor
Any editor may clerk RfA, subject to community scrutiny.

Support B5

 * Support because I don't see any reason at the moment to change from what's already happening at RfA: users taking it upon themselves to clean up when numbering gets out of order, indent comments when necessary, move extended threads to talk, and so on, and I don't see the benefit to adding any more bureaucracy to that organic activity. Granted, I haven't read any other part of this page yet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * After some thought, striking this per my comments on the talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) But no need to formalize it as "clerking". Any editor can act in good faith to fix things at an RfA, and any editor who makes a mistake doing that can be reverted. And editors who keep doing things disruptively can be topic banned. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. Being subject to scrutiny is enough. There's no need for bureaucracy here. --Stfg (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah, per those above. BMK (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support letting the community monitor this along with official 'crat oversight. Let's reduce the bureaucracy here for implementation. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per my reason for opposing B3. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support for uncontroversial actions, but don't formalise it as clerking or create the unnecessary bureaucratic burden suggested under 'Implementation'. Any editor can already do uncontroversial actions. Some actions should continue to be left to bureaucrats. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, but of course community or admin bans should over-ride this permission. Formal clerking will involve the use of the log. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) per Trypto and others.  Leaky  Caldron  16:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support anybody who acts in good faith and is not a sockpuppet. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support WP:BURO - consensus is determined by the community-as-a-whole. There is no reason that this consensual discussion should be treated as different than any other. - jc37 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Similar enough to what we do already. —  Earwig   talk 04:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) The group of users allowed to clerk at RfAs should be the group of users allowed to edit the encyclopaedia. —Kusma (t·c) 17:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support any good faith edits should be fine, I would support that any such actions follow WP:1RR. — xaosflux  Talk 20:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support for good faith edits, with the caveat that if necessary to have a dedicated group of responsible clerks who make sure everything's taken care of, that should be OK as long as it's not a case of "only dedicated group can do these edits". TheBlinkster (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Clerking-type actions should be able to be performed by any responsible editor. To date we have not had a problem with inappropriate people performing these actions. I see no need to define who can and who can't; people seem to be self-selecting to do these things just fine. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose B5

 * 1) Strong Oppose The sock puppetry will be very strong. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for same reasons I opposed in section B4, allowing editors who meet certain criteria to clerk. DO see my related comment in B3, appointed/elected clerks.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Andrew D. (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) To paraphrase myself from the basic proposal section, I oppose the concept of giving everyone the notion that they need to start interfering with other people's comments, messing about with RfA pages etc. any more than they already do. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I don't understand, how does it remain clerking then. Unless you oppose the basic proposal, supporting this makes no sense. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#10052;  C ) 08:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose This proposal runs risk of the bureaucracy constraining the consensus, which could mean that RfAs only pass if candidate's have a political "in" with the clerks and such. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - There must be limits to this, otherwise it would be a classic case of the inmates running the asylum. — Jkudlick t c s 08:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose – What does this even mean? How is this defined as "clerking", as opposed to editing discussions in the usual way? I can't say that I understand this proposal. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about B5

 * Subject to bureaucrat approval and lack of objections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)