Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfC vote validity

Hello, and welcome to this RfC concerning guidelines as to when a !vote in a requests for adminship discussion should be removed.

This RfC has been caused by controversy surrounding a vote being struck, unstruck, struck again, unstruck for a second time, struck for a third time, unstruck for a third time, struck for a fourth time, and then finally unstruck, with instructions from to not strike the vote again, and the dissent relating to the vote moved to the talk page.

I do not want to set the agenda -- that, friends, is up to you -- but the vote in question was not vandalism, and was not directly insulting. Therefore, the RfC below is to establish clear guidance concerning removal of votes before the final count, and preventing incidents like above.

In addition, a similar incident occurred in the same RfA concerning questions, see, thus the RfC will establish the same as above but for questions. A previous question by the same editor who wrote the oppose vote above was also struck by. Both were answered anyway by the candidate.

Although not the same thing entirely, 's oppose in 's RfA received heavy criticism from various editors, to the point where he felt pressured to move to the neutral section. As a result, I have extended this RfC to include discussion of whether threaded discussion of !votes should be allowed.

I said on the discussion on WT:RFA that this sort of oppose-hounding is new, but I am wrong, see this RFA from two years ago -- Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 with 's notorious oppose (see also the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Wbm1058 that was moved there).

Pinging involved editors who have not participated yet:, , , ,.

My name continues to not be dave (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Generally no. There may be rare cases that are exceptions to the rule, but the only !votes that should be removed before the Crats get there should be those that violate policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a rule, no. We shouldn't be enforcing a rationale standard at RfA when we don't have any set criteria for adminship. If we made such criteria, then yes, it should be enforced. We can't have it both ways. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No; the impact of removing or striking a !vote actually itself becomes negative on the Rfa. Irrespective, a comment or an !vote, however silly in editors' opinions, should not be struck unless it is vandalism, personal attack or a deliberate sock/meat puppet edit.  Lourdes  01:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no (vandalism to RfA can be reverted like vandalism anywhere else). Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 02:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No: Per my own comment in the discussion above, and per Samsara's comment in the discussion below. Also, per Lourdes. If any sort of activity (vote/comment/question) is pure vandalism usually any editor already reverts it. — usernamekiran (talk)  04:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I think if it is out of the line, but not enough to be reverted or to be moved to talkpage, then only one editor should reply to that vote in civil manner, instead of gang-banging. — usernamekiran (talk)  05:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not struck, but moved to talk page if clearly out-of-band. Should probably be up to the admins policing RfAs.  We're already routinely moving irrelevant chaff and inappropriate venting to an RfA's talk page; there is no reason this cannot be done with !votes that don't make any sense.  That said, stupid votes have a tendency to immediately get slammed as stupid (in politer words), so leaving them is probably not harmful. It may be harmful to leave ones that make allegations that prove to be false, or even don't have evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  05:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, nothing should be struck except a person's own entry, WP:SOCK violations and clear WP:NPA violations which should be dealt with in the normal manner. One man's bizarre rational is another man's guiding mantra. What's the point of asking for community consensus if you are not accepting opinions from all aspects. Most of them don't even warrant a response; most editors can see for themselves whether an oppose (or support) is facetious or not, and it reflects badly only on the poster, not the RfA candidate. One or two reasoned challenges to poor rationale should be enough. Also pretty sure the average crat can balance the value of comments when closing. Club Oranje T 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Saturnalia0 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not removed but indented and struck. This is the only  way  to  show them and others that  such  trolling  is not  to be tolerated. And this should apply to any  vote that appears to be mean spirited rather than genuinely objective. Being  phrased politely  should be no  defence -  such  disingenuous behaviour is often disguised as being unctuously polite, and such voters will usually  be found to  have a longer history of less than friendly  collaboration elsewhere. Above all those who leave an isolated oppose vote on  a RfA that  is quite clearly  going  to pass should be made to  feel  as uncomfortable and embarrassed as possible; they  knowingly  accept  that  they  will engender flak and controversy so they should be big enough to take it.
 * If people are going to deliberately  maintain RfA's reputation of being a horrible and broken process they  should be made to feel as uncomfortable as possible for breaking it and making it horrible - the usual Wikipampering  and AGFing  doesn't  work  with  these people as RfA history has clearly  demonstrated with the blocks and bans that  have needed to be imposed on such on  voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Except it's not the only way; moving their crap to the RfA's talk page with a note that it wasn't appropriate has the same effect, without making the rest of us read the noise. And we're already doing it a lot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, neither should they be struck or moved (except in clear cases of block evasion or sockpuppetry). WP:IDONTLIKEIT, even if there are multiple people who don't like it, is not cause to remove, move, or strike a !vote. If an RfA is borderline and the count hinges on a few !votes and goes to cratchat, 'crats will examine the merits of each individual !vote. That's their job, not the job of observers or participants of the RfA. Unpopular !votes will always be commented upon, and it is up to the !voter to decide how to respond to those critiques. It is not up to the community to police !votes and disallow unpopular ones. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they should be allowed to stand. Voters displaying their stupidity or the axes they wish to grind are a traditional part of this process. These votes deserve to be called out, but striking or indenting them glorifies them by adding drama to the process that the candidate does not deserve. —Kusma (t·c) 17:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No They should be allowed to stand.Now vandalism ,socking or a WP:NPA  violation should be dealt with as usual.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No I am all for editors irresponsibly shooting off their mouths the way I do. No one should feel empowered to remove others' comments per WP:REFACTOR. Anyone that does should face penalties. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and these !votes should not be removed or struck either. I hate to take this position, but due to the events that led to this RfC, I have zero confidence that minority oppose !voters can expect to be afforded the proper assumption of good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. For the listed exceptions, only bureaucrats should be able to strike votes (though anyone can revert inappropriate content). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, neither removed nor struck by other editors except in the case of duplicate !votes, banned editors !voting, clear policy violations, or obvious vandalism. An editor can strike or remove their own !votes, of course, subject to talk page guidelines if discussion has occurred. If !votes do need to be struck or removed, then it should be 'crats (or RfA clerks, which don't currently exist) that do it. 'Crats are responsible for judging consensus and it is up to them to determine the appropriate weight given to a particular !vote or if a !vote should be removed. The act of removing or striking !votes by non-crats seems to be a magnet for drama; one person's trolling is another person's reasonable if fringe-y rationale. Better to leave the questionable !votes in place and let the 'crats deal with them. Ca2james (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Any editor tempted to remove or strike out "foolish" votes should instead remind participants that our highly trained bureaucrats just ignore foolishness when closing RfAs. A 100% positive RfA is not a solid gold trophy and a 98% positive RfA is not a blot. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, though god knows I'm tempted to say yes. There were a bunch of votes at my RFA which alleged bias sans evidence. While they bothered me a good deal at the time, I believe they were handled the right way; they were challenged (called out, if you will) but left in place; and I think ultimately they had the effect of enhancing my credentials to other voters. It's too easy to remove a comment, and ignore the sentiments behind it; the harder but more productive approach is to challenge the statements in question, and demonstrate that the community at large finds them despicable, even if we do not remove a person's ability to express themselves. Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Unless we can give clear objective policies on what votes are not permitted (duplicates and socks, banned editors, personal attacks and obvious vandalism), no vote should ever be removed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. What has started to occur at RfA is people are becoming intolerant of any dissenting opinion against a candidate they like. They need to get some tougher skin. It's the job of the closing bureaucrat to weigh the comments presented. They are not morons. They can spot vacuous and troll comments. If you can't tolerate someone voicing a bad opinion, you don't belong participating in an open community where anybody can edit. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  No Yes, indented or struck in extreme circumstances only. I'm very sympathetic to the problems that clueless/POV/etc !votes cause, and the fear of animosity from editors they've had run-ins with in the past surely does dissuade some good candidates from running. But the ability to cancel !votes unless there's a clear case of vandalism/trolling/block evasion/Personal attack is too close to a very dangerous slope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my take on it after Newyorkbrad's comments below. I'm still wary of the dangerous slope, but I now think a blanket "No" is wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Don't strike, move, or otherwise edit !votes that are not blatant vandalism, personal attacks, or made by a sockpuppet. There is no reason to treat comments at RfA and differently to comments anywhere else. You would not strike my comments on a talk page, unless they were clearly and unequivocally out of line. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, for the reasons noted above, unless the comment would be removed if it was posted elsewhere—e.g. a threat or disclosure of pesronal information (this does not extend to requests for the candidate to voluntarily disclose personal information, which the candidate of course is free to decline). We have no need of comments to be policed at RfA or elsewhere. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, indented or struck in extreme circumstances only. We had this same discussion last year and there was a consensus that striking or removing !votes should certainly not be done routinely. However, as I pointed out at the time, an ironclad rule of "nothing that starts with the word 'Support' or 'Oppose' on an RfA page can ever be removed or struck out" risks inviting a level of trolling that could become impossible for us to live with. I'm not going to further publicize the specific instances of this type of comment that I have in mind, but those with longer memories of RfA will recall that some of them were pretty bad. Please see also my prior comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive_244. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, no – every person is entitled to have a opinion and bureaucrats can discount them.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Not moved, not struck, nothing. Let them stand.  A voice is still a voice, and it should be heard.  An unfounded oppose will be seen as such, and shouldn't be hidden away like the ugly step-child. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Let the RfA closer make their judgement. f eminist 05:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading NYB's opinion, I think if a vote is problematic, such as with trolls, established editors may note that by adding a comment after the vote stating the problem. But let the votes stand. They can be ignored when the crat closes an RfA. f eminist 14:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - indented and/or struck per the compelling arguments presented by Kudpung & New York Brad. Atsme 📞📧 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Striking votes that aren't personal attacks or vandalism would be silencing dissent. In the same vein we don't strike support votes that just say "support" without any substantiation. The appropriate response to badly argued oppose votes should be to pile on support votes - there have been a few occasions on which I would have voted "neutral" or even "weak oppose", but landed on "support" because I felt that some of the "oppose" votes were unreasonable. Deryck C. 09:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No - My standard advice to candidates I put up for RfA is "ignore all opposes", and by and large they do. By all means, make a civil and polite disagreement to a good-faith oppose vote on a third party's RfA, even when it's "oppose, no anti-vandalism experience" and "oppose, no GAs", but striking stuff because "the mob" don't like it is just too close to moral fashions. And that's not good. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The question should have been worded a bit better, but !votes should only be stuck or removed for very clear cause such as (not necessarily limited to) sock/block-evasion/persistent_disruptive_behavior. !votes certainly should not be removed or struck merely because they are poorly supported, or because someone doesn't like the !vote's rationale. That just creates a mess. It's the closer's job to evaluate the quality of the !votes, and give them whatever weight they warrant. Alsee (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Can't say it plainer than that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No: The 'crats may simply quietly ignore trolls, who should not be fed. I've long suspected that the base of oppose suppression is to preserve a RfA's status as unopposed, which is silly. Again, do not feed the trolls. Write a stub on something in your personal field of expertise instead. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Or at least, not the free-for-all that we recently saw on Megalibrarygirl's RFA.  Trolling and ignorant votes are often in the eye of the beholder, and I have to agree with User:Cullen328's observation that a lot of the anger that seems to be stirred up against these votes seems to come from a desire to see a favoured candidate's nomination sail through unopposed.  I also strongly disagree with Kudpung's characterisation of adding Oppose votes to discussions that are clearly going to pass as "bad faith", since I have done so recently with good intentions.  With that being said, I would be in favour of giving the authority to indent and strike toxic votes to a limited subset of individuals (in my mind, the 'crats), if only to help make it clear what sort of "votes" are being discounted to reduce the perceived value of adding them.  This would need to happen even in cases where the comment would not have in any case had an effect on the outcome of the process.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC).
 * No They should be allowed to stand unless made by a banned or blocked user, a sock or suchlike or in contravention of policy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Because then it turns into thought police (as some recent RFA's show) where editors with unpopular opinions get shouted down. RFA is an opinion based popularity contest - based on an individual's opinion of an editor's fitness to be an admin. If a !voter comes to a conclusion that an editor has a bias that makes them unfit to be an admin, then that's their opinion. Otherwise frankly we need to start striking all votes that have no basis in policy and are purely based on a !voters subjective criteria of what they think an admin should have. Which imho would be a vast improvement, but ultimately no one would pass. If you want to have an opinion based system, you have to accept you will get unpopular opinions occasionally. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mu. Before we ask this question, we must first ask whether !votes that are blatant vandalism and personal attacks may be removed. Historically, there has been an unreasonable amount of opposition to removing !votes which are either entirely nonsensical or attack a candidate. My RfA, for instance, was an exercise in how much leeway we give to editors to make accusations of bad faith and wrongdoing without any proof at RfA. I spent the week being accused of sockpuppetry based solely on my competence. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Any implementation of this, in any shape of form, is going to extremely discourage many editors from expressing their opinion. Stikkyy</b> t/c 05:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, indented or struck in extreme circumstances only. per Kudpung and Newyorkbrad. Callanecc' (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Only in cases of clear vandalism or personal insults. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 16:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Except blatant vandalism and socking. Saying that an RfA candidate is unable to seperate their personal convictions from an admin role is a reasonable objection I don't mean to imply that MLG was guilty of any such 'bias', merely that the general proposition is a valid one which others are entitled to judge for themselves. These particular 'strikers' did not even leave a note, thereby creating the impression that the original editor struck her/his 'vote'. All that was achieved by this instance was needless drama and a (AFAIK undeserved) impression that the candidate needed "chaperoning". Pincrete (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally no, but with exceptions including but not limited to sockpuppets, banned users, obvious SPAs, obvious irrelevancies and obvious personal attacks. If any editor in good standing disagrees then it is not obvious. Most importantly, do not edit war. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and anyone who does so should be facing penalties. Honest to pete. I don't understand why all those people who struck votes went unsanctioned. It's fine to be disappointed in the vote (and to say so). Not fine to strike it, though; that's what we have 'crats for, to assess the validity of any vote. Gonna be honest, while I don't agree with the reasoning in the vote, and it tells me more about the author than it does about the candidate, it's no less valid a reason for opposing than literally hundreds of oppose votes we have all seen over the years.  Risker (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * If nothing else, at the close of the RfA, the closing bureaucrat should strike any not-vote they would completely discount in a crat chat, whether due to transparent bad faith, prima facie absurd rationale, or whatever, irrespective of the final tally. I feel this would tamp down somewhat on bad-faith not-votes whilst maintaining something of an upper bound on the drama during the RfA proper. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a workable model - different crats will consider different votes as weak. Samsara 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pehaps I should have said "irrespective of the final tally, unless doing so would push the result out of the discretionary zone." Apart from that case, I don't see how bureaucratic discretion is unworkable. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If crats should clerk Rfas, then it might be sensible to have a policy or guideline that prohibits anyone else (except crats) from striking any !vote, however silly (leave the vandalism exceptions).  Lourdes  01:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think people should not edit war a(n un)striking of a !vote. To be perfectly frank, "making one's opinion clear on an RfA" is not so important as to justify edit warring like the one mentioned at the top of this section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. I think there would need to clear consensus regarding the removal of a vote first, though. I did raise this as one of my principal questions on WT:RFA. We need to establish first whether removal of votes is blanket acceptable. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To tell the truth, I've always thought that the "just ignore the stupid ones" attitude is the root cause for all the reputation problems the RfA process has. It doesn't work and encourages people to use the RfA process as a soapbox for every peeve they have. Asking for a consensus before removing a vote is reasonable but edit warring around it is not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From my experience, as I said above, the candidates rarely get involved in silly arguments over oppose votes. Perhaps I'm in a minority in that I only had a handful of opposes and all were good-faith and civil that had 1-2 people say "I don't agree with that" and that was it. I doubt Cullen328 and Megalibrarygirl were particularly bothered by the trickle of opposition that came in on theirs. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I can understand all those saying 'No', really I can, but it's not as simple as that. Something needs to be done however, because the status quo just maintains RfA as "a horrible and broken process" and as such does not encourage potential candidates of the right calibre to come forward. I think we should make harder for users who make fake-founded or bad faith votes (and that includes being a lone oppose at a RfA that is very obviously going to pass with flying colours). And that means striking and leaving for all to see that we mean business. If everyone would vote reasonably, we wouldn't need to be having these discussions which (with one or two exceptions) are really just preaching to the choir. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is, who gets to decide what's "reasonable" and how? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the conundrum: these discussions are preaching to choir, but the choir is not all singing from the same page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So how will you prevent edit wars about whether a vote should be struck or not? Clerks only? Our last relevant large-scale discussion seems to be 2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC, which basically agreed that clerking is necessary, but removal/striking of votes should only be done by crats. —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A more recent discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 244. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"This RfC has been caused by controversy surrounding a vote being struck, unstruck, struck again, unstruck for a second time, struck for a third time, unstruck for a third time, struck for a fourth time, and then finally unstruck, with instructions from Cyberpower678 to not strike the vote again, and the dissent relating to the vote moved to the talk page." .... and then finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters?

On a more serious point, it's worth investigating the problem further, as discussions like this only seem to flare up directly in the middle of an RfA that generates a huge argument. I know editors who have publicly refused an RfA, S Marshall comes to mind and Cullen328 needed years of persuading. A while back on WikiProject Editor Retention, the project solicited feedback from editors who had retired from Wikipedia and why. Perhaps we could do the same for adminship. Similarly, it would be useful to get feedback from those who opposed earlier RfAs to see if they still hold the same views. I made a point of nominating Anarchyte's second RfA after opposing on the first.

I looked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058. I saw a fair opinion : "He's created 47 mainspace pages. Of those, 15 have been deleted according to this. That's 32% of the articles that he's created being deleted. To me, that is a problem." which was immediately followed by an accusation of trolling. If GregJackP was wrong, say why he was wrong, don't lob personal attacks into the debate! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to put on record my highest degree of concern about the emerging outcome of this RfC. If enforced literally, this new rule may prove to be disastrous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've certainly convinced me that the hard-and-fast outlawing of striking problematic !votes except for blatant vandalism or personal attacks is a potentially very bad move. If your fears do come true, we could well be having a new RfC in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * It depends of course on  the questions. Totally  ridiculous, impertinent, or otherwise inappropriate questions, and also  especially  those that refuse to comply  with  the 2-question rule (which  we still  keep  seeing  time and time again), should be struck -  but  not  removed.  An in-depth research  of questions was made here. It's not  quite up  to  date but but  the situation  has never improved. The examples are as relevant as they were then.
 * If people are going to deliberately  maintain RfA's reputation of being a horrible and broken process they  should be made to feel as uncomfortable as possible for breaking it and making it horrible - the usual Wikipampering  and AGFing  doesn't  work  with  these people as RfA history has clearly  demonstrated with the blocks and bans that  have needed to be imposed on such on  voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Part of adminship is making value judgments, and if a candidate wants to answer a question, let them answer it. If they want to skip a question (or reply saying they will respond later), let them skip it. If they want to comment/reply that the question seems inappropriate or that they are dumbfounded or have no answer, let them do that. If they want to go to the talkpage and express their bafflement or request that an administrator consider striking or removing the question because it appears inappropriate, let them do that. Whatever action the candidate takes will reflect on how they handle the infinite number of judgments an admin has to make every day, even in the face of frustrating/irritating/foolish people or circumstances. It is not up to the community to police questions out of hand, except in the case of blatant vandalism or personal attacks. If an observer or participant thinks a question is egregious, they should ping the questioner on the talkpage (or go to their usertalk) and ask them to remove it, but not do anything themselves. Unless it comes to pass that RfAs are simply filling up with more questions than a candidate has time to answer (and please note that it really behooves a candidate to ensure they are free for the duration of that week), I don't personally see a cause to remove or strike any of them. Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes. There are questions that obviously have no bearing on a candidate's qualifications, such as the returning troll who posts math problems.  That specific individual is perma-blocked or banned so their questions are usually removed quickly but there are others that have just as little validity. The perennial "Here's 11 usernames I made up, which are invalid?" one (which, oddly enough, none of the current three RFA's includes) or "What do you think of my essay?" ones that pop up from time to time are nothing more than timesinks.  A RFA candidate can choose to not answer those, but that is guaranteed to increase the opposes on the basis of "they lack communication skills"-type reasoning.  The candidate should not be placed onto the tines of Morton's Fork out of sheer contrariness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally, no. Let the RfA candidate decide how to deal with (ie, answer or not answer) such questions. But the 2 question rule should be strictly enforced. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I wanted this one to be a simple no like above. Thoughts here (as someone who as of this typing is going through RfA): I would answer almost any question asked (unless it asked me to reveal personal information that would be equivalent of self-outing.) I'd leave this to bureaucrats discretion as to if a question is disruptive, expecting that the overwhelming majority of times they would do nothing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No except in the case of vandalism, banned editors asking questions, or questions over the two question limit (or at 'crats discretion). Some questions do appear to be irrelevant but it's up to the candidate to deal with those ones. The way a candidate responds (or doesn't respond) to these questions can be informative as an indicator of their approach to dealing with oddball questions and requests from editors. Ca2james (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No - as I stated above, we need objective policies to define what's disallowed, and never remove anything else. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm torn on this one. As TonyBallioni, I'd like to be able to say a clear No, as a candidate can always ignore an inappropriate question. But I've seen candidates opposed simply for doing that, with some !voters requiring candidates to answer all questions - though having said that, it's probably rare, and I can't think of an actual example right now. But there are some questions that undoubtedly should not be asked, without being blatant vandalism or personal attacks. I'll go with Kudpung's It depends and Tony's bureaucrats discretion . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to strike that last clause as I've just reverted some questions that appear to be just trolling - totally unrelated to adminship anyway. Sometimes the answer must be Yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably rare, but so are RfAs these days, but they  do happen. Dig  deep enough  and you'll  find plenty  of examples of oppose votes because a candidate declined a perfectly  optional question. Usually  the question  was invalid, so  the vote is invalid, and the voter should be slapped on  the wrist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No per Softlavender and Od Mishehu. On the one hand, I concur that some of the questions asked at RfA are utterly ridiculous, but, that's an entirely subjective metric to measure things against. Further, SL brings up a good point, in that admin candidates need to be able to make judgement calls. One thing I disagree with SL on is the suggestion of having admins clerk questions, having recently undone an admins striking of two good faith questions, I have to say no, only bureaucrats should be able to exercise discretion with regards to the questions asked at RfA - unless of course obvious vandalism, sockpuppetry, or personal attacks are involved. That said, if there were concrete policy as to what kind of questions were allowed or disallowed at RfA, then at least there'd be an objective basis for admins or non-admins to clerk the questions asked at RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes. I've seen enough questions crafted such that they don't represent vandalism or personal attacks in the very worst and obvious sense, but are still irrelevant, needlessly provocative, and disruptive to the process. I don't like the idea of leaving this responsibility of dealing with bad questions to the candidate. RfA is a highly visible process that is already associated with a tremendous amount of scrutiny and expectations on the candidate. I think that is enough on its own. If potential candidates see that folks are permitted to ask provocative and stupid questions that they have to strategically decide whether to answer or not, they will not run. Is that really what we want? <b style="font-family:Garamond; color:green">I JethroBT</b> drop me a line 19:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, a candidate is free to decline to answer any question presented to them, including their thoughts on the question's pertinence or silliness. I know some people automatically oppose candidates who don't answer every question, but so be it. I do, however, think we need to enforce the two-question limit per editor. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes in rare instances. Questions that have a defensible claim to relevance and coherence should be left for the candidate to address in his or her discretion, but ones that are facially nonsensical, irrelevant, or pointless should be removed lest they become a distraction. I fear that an ironclad rule against striking or removing trollish questions will only encourage them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes in principle, though they should only be struck so no – violations of the 2 question rule, disclosure of personal information, and questions very unrelated to the RfA should sometimes be struck.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   02:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No per the same reasons given above. Already well said, so I won't waste the space. - <b style="color:#ff5d00">NsTaGaTr</b> (<b style="color:#F00">Talk</b>) 13:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they are lame questions, like "do you like this essay", "will you promise to be inclusionist", maths problems, etc. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Only in the case of vandalism, banned editors asking questions, or questions over the two question limit.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Let the candidate decide whether to answer that question. f eminist 05:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No except in cases of blatant NPA or verified SOCK. I'd rather have the option to judge a candidates character on how they respond to such; whether that be a good answer, decline to answer, lambasting the question, ignore the question or whatever. Club Oranje T 11:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes for rule violations; and at bureaucrat discretion. The process of striking questions should be rule-governed. If an editor asks a third question, that's a rule violation and should be struck. Bureaucrats are the final judges of an RfA so they should assume a similar role of responsibility in enforcing RfA rules, so on rare occasions they should also be allowed to strike questions which they believe are malformed or in bad faith. Deryck C. 10:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No simply because that gives me the free choice to say "That's a stupid question that won't tell you anything about whether this editor is suitable for adminship and I strongly advise the candidate to ignore it". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Certainly enforce the 'two question rule', and questions can removed for very clear cause such as (not necessarily limited to) sock/block-evasion/persistent_disruptive_behavior. However trying to remove lousy questions probably just creates a mess. It's perfectly reasonable for a candidate to skip it or give a response calling it out as a lousy question. Alsee (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No except for violating the two-question rule. For troll questions and ones that otherwise should not be answered, it says much that the candidate refuses to answer it, or perhaps, that the candidate could cleverly answer it. As I've said often in my RfA opposes, the candidate's approach to the RfA process can be as important as his or her background on Wikipedia. The questions portion functions like a job interview, and asking the candidate questions to show his or her critical thinking is extremely helpful. Bear in mind, even in run-of-the-mill RfA questions that have a clear right and wrong answer, it is far more often not the candidate's response, but his or her manner of response that is important. I think that the way a candidate responds to a "bad" question or a "bad" person shows a great deal about how that candidate might respond to similarly "bad" situations as an administrator. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I'd love to be able to include the questions of "is this trolling?" or "is this relevant to administratorship?" to the list of reasons to strike questions, but such things are inherently subjective and I fear that they'd only lead to more arguments over whether certain questions are appropriate or not.  I would favour heavier enforcement of the two question rule, as well as questions that place an onerous time burden on the candidate to answer.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC).
 * No - The way the question is handled will be a guide to how the candidate reacts to tricky situations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No - Per Ritchie mostly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No The candidate has every right to ignore questions. I doubt anyone would oppose based on the candidate not answering a ridiculous question requesting them to jump through a dozen hoops. <b style="color:#ACA3BF">Stikkyy</b> t/c 05:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes per Kudpung and Newyorkbrad. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No The wording of the question here asked includes, which are not blatant vandalism or personal attacks. I'm not sure if this wording was changed at some point, but Newyorkbrad's comment seems to be in reply to the question omitting this modifier. To be very clear, the way the question is currently phrased, it seems to me it already sanctifies removing "blatant vandalism or personal attacks", which already gives a lot of room for interpretation. If these labels are applied too liberally, I'm sure we'll have further exhaustive/ing discussion such as this - futility writ large not least because we're apparently unwilling to let readers treat these questions with the merit they deserve, and accept plurality of opinion. I find the notion that readers cannot assess the merit of a question and therefore must be dictated to by means of censorship, to be rather revealing about the state of this community. Samsara 11:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No "I find the notion that readers cannot assess the merit of a question and therefore must be dictated to by means of censorship, to be rather revealing about the state of this community". Amen to that! Even a dumb, or mildly impertinent question can be revealing as to how the candidate handles it, asks for clarification, or says why they would rather not answer. Pincrete (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Occasionally but only by 'crats at their discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I can understand all those saying 'No', really I can, but it's not as simple as that. Something needs to be done however, because the status quo just maintains RfA as "a horrible and broken process" and as such does not encourage potential candidates of the right calibre to come forward. I think we should make it more challenging for those who express unreasonable opinions, for some definition of unreasonable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SecurePoll always looms in my mind. You once said the community doesn't want it -- has it ever been !voted upon though? <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 09:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The big problem with that is that SecurePoll is not a discussion, and RFA is very much (and, in my view, should be) discussion-based and dependent on expressed reasons for Supporting or Opposing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How are ArbCom elections and an RfA different, then, in your view? Obviously, in an ArbCom election, we are voting for multiple candidates at once. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 10:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Arbcom elections are even more horrible and broken than RfA. The so called 'voter guides', and question sections are used to mercilessly attack the candidates and make fake character assassinations, and unlike RfA, nobody is around to refute them, because there is no discussion allowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that if anything were to change, then introducing Support/Oppose discussion of Arbcom candidates would preferable to eliminating Support/Oppose discussion of RFA candidates - but as there are so many of them running at the same time, I could see that as being a bit of a nightmare to organize. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using SecurePoll. Maybe we could have a discussion AND use SecurePoll, separating the election campaign from the voting. That voters are able to influence other voters with the comment next to their support or oppose vote is among my least favourite parts of the process. —Kusma (t·c) 19:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think securepoll would change much. Honestly, I think the only way forward for RfA is for it to become more like BRfA: Make a 30-day trial easy to get, require a certain number of admin actions during that period, and then have the full-dress RfA discussion at the end of the trial that focuses on the actions taken during the trial. I've been mulling this idea for a couple months now, and I really don't see any better way. People avoid RfA because it's a meat grinder and because people are afraid to support when the outcome is uncertain. Make the focus actual admin actions and the need to pore over and needlessly focus on ancient history should evaporate. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What if that was to sink a perfectly good RfA? A response of "so be it" in that case would seem a bit inappropriately apathetic. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 20:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that candidates should acknowledge all and answer most questions at RfA, but I respect a candidate's right to decline to answer any question if they feel it is inappropriate or irrelevant. Of course, I also think we should respect the questioner's right to oppose the candidate on this basis. Sorry if it came across otherwise, but my apathy was directed at the (lack of) impact a few relatively trivial opposes would have. I think most RfA participants would give little weight to such comments, so I doubt that just a few of them would sink a "perfectly good RfA". I also expect bureaucrats would give due consideration to oppose based on the candidate ignoring participants' questions and opposes based on a candidate choosing to not be drawn into a provocative or harassing line of inquiry. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As with the prior section, I fear that the apparent consensus above, if stated as an overly sweeping rule, is going to cause huge problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The eventual outcome greatly depends upon how simplistic the consensus is interpreted. Nearly every !vote above takes some pains to make clear the author does not think either a simple "yes" or "no" is the correct answer.  The actual consensus developing seems to be something along the lines of "Non-obviously policy-breaking questions should not be routinely removed or struck but there are conditions and cases that may lead to removal or striking that can't be set out fully in advance because we aren't psychics."  Admittedly, that's not a pithy or concise result, but it is how I'd suggest closing it if I hadn't already !voted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes of course, and any thread can be moved to the talkpage (by the !voter, or by another editor unless the !voter objects) if it gets lengthy or contentious. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, generally. There is no "don't disagree with me" right for !voters. Also, while some threaded discussions turn into arguments sometimes someone makes a mistake (e.g on Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit 2). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and !votes are not votes— they are, in fact, not-votes, the exclamation point prefix being the operator of binary negation in C and C-affine programming languages. The practice of calling not-votes "!votes" makes a distinction which is clearly lost on some contributors, and is even glossed over or confused in the header of this RfC. RfA is a discussion, and if someone makes an illogical, grudgeholdy, or WP:POINTy comment in a discussion, they can and should expect to be challenged for it, regardless of venue. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as we allow people to provide a rationale, it must also be allowed to challenge it, especially as other voters are often influenced by these rationales. —Kusma (t·c) 17:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes At the risk of repeating myself: the freedom to voice one's opinion is accompanied by the responsibility to accept the reaction to one's opinion; otherwise, that freedom is meaningless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. That's what the spirit of a discussion, and not just a vote, is all about. Overly lengthy threads can be moved to the RfA talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes RfA is a discussion, not a vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes--after all, the reason we call it a "!vote" instead of a "vote" is because consensus, formed by discussion, is what counts. --Joshualouie711talk 02:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but it should be expected that long discussions will be moved to the talk page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes as RfA is a discussion. Discussions can involve clarification or challenges to !votes. I expect that long discussions (im thinking more than three or four indents levels) or anything like the recent "I oppose this oppose" will be moved to the Talk page, preferably by a 'crat or an RfA clerk. Ca2james (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes . As recently  stated: The freedom to voice one's opinion is accompanied by the responsibility to accept the reaction to one's opinion; otherwise, that freedom is meaningless. There is a lot of malicious oppose voting  as we have seen in the current RfAs as we discuss this.  Sometimes, peer pressure can get  them  to  change  their vote. There has been too  much  tolerance over the years of allowing  RfA to  be the one venue where users can be as nasty  as they  like and get  away  with  it. If the process is to  survive (or any  that  replaces it), irresponsible voting  needs to  be stopped somehow, because like  any  other collaborative web site, blog, or forum, Wikipedia needs moderators, and that's  why  we need admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, per my comments above, and the statement from Eggishorn highlighted by Kudpung above. Vanamonde (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, and if the discussion gets too long, it should be moved elsewhere just like we normally do. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. They should be treated with same accord as any other !vote or comment. Large threaded discussions should be moved to RfA talk and clearly linked on the RfA main page. Otherwise, do not strike or remove comments that are not blatant vandalism, personal attacks, or made by sockpuppets. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, per above, otherwise we might as well just use SurveyMonkey. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely as RfA is meant to be a discussion.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   02:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, though it is preferable for lengthy such discussions to be transferred to the RFA's talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be the devil's advocate here and suggest no, not always. As long as we maintain a system generally based on vote counting, and have a narrow discretionary range of 10%, RfA is more voting than discussion in practice. Any discussion longer than a few lines should be moved to the talk page, to prevent editor opinions from being drowned out by others. f eminist 05:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a discussion. However, if you can't make your point in one clear concise paragraph you are not likely to ever make your point. Long discussions are dull. You don't need to have the last word even if the one you are responding to is being obstinate. Club Oranje T 11:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I think the current practice, whereby threaded responses are allowed, but would be moved to the talk page if the thread becomes long, is appropriate. Deryck C. 09:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Subject to standard WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA policies, good-faith and well-natured disagremeent is absolutely fine. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, but lengthy debates should be discouraged. I think the status quo for how we handle this is working fine. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. A lot of the threaded discussion, particularly around oppose votes, is of very limited value, but occasionally it throws up something useful.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Yes Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No RFA is not a discussion, it is a voting popularity contest. By 'discussion' what actually happens is someone votes in a contrary way and gets badgered by the opposition. We know you oppose them, you already indicated that by voting the other way. We don't need to read extended threads where you try and convince them they are wrong. Its rarely a successful tactic and it just ends up wasting everyone's time. Were RFA a beacon of civil discussion (when editors vote in opposing directions), this wouldn't be an issue, but its not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Specifically, these discussions should remain on the main RfA page in almost all cases. Removing them is disruptive to the natural flow of a discussion, which is what RfA is supposed to be. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Lots of smoke, no fire. Nonetheless, there's no reason to prevent editors from addressing votes they see of concern. <b style="color:#ACA3BF">Stikkyy</b> t/c 05:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes per everyone else, 'discussion' can become mere 'badgering', can become needlessly uncivil, can make the threads unreadably long, but outright banning would be counter-productive IMO. Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although such comments must be relevant, civil and contain no personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
If I understand the genesis of this question correctly, the intent is not to eliminate any threaded discussion, but to move it from directly beneath each person's "support" or "oppose" statement to the "General discussion" section? isaacl (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is whether threaded responses should be allowed on (individual) RfA votes. "General discussion" is separate from votes. (And to further clarify, sometimes threaded responses under a given vote are moved to the talkpage, but never to the "General discussion" section, although sometimes various editor's votes or points are mentioned in "General discussion".) Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that for person Z wishing to comment on person A's vote that it's easier to respond immediately below it, but it's a classic tragedy of the commons. It's a lot easier for everyone else if all discussion about a specific raised concern is grouped together in one spot, rather than under the votes from persons A, B, C, and so forth. The ability to discuss anyone's vote is not eliminated; the conversation would just be consolidated, thereby reducing redundancy and making the discussion easier to follow. isaacl (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposal would make conversations and discussion more difficult to follow, since comments would be separated from what they are comments on. That's why nested threading exists, rather than a message-board single-unindented-post at a time format. Concerns common to more than one vote or voter take place in General Discussion (or on the talk page), thereby keeping "all discussion about a specific raised concern" together. Softlavender (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, discussion about a concern raised by multiple people is typically fragmented, as people feel a need to comment on each one (the "General discussion" section often lies nearly empty, or much smaller than the responses beneath the expressed viewpoints). Yes, it makes it harder on person Z and person A. But if the relevant portion being commented on is quoted/paraphrased, it's much simpler for everyone else, who only have to look at one section for ongoing discussion, instead of continually going through all of the previous comments looking for new responses (or trying to read comments in raw wikitext from the diff screen). isaacl (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Isaacl, in your more than 9 years here you haven't voted on or even commented in a single RfA. May I ask where this seemingly unfounded concern is coming from, and can you provide specific evidence of instances where any threaded discussions on RfA votes were "redundant" or "hard to follow"? I'm asking because your position defies logic, since paraphrasing someone, or quoting them in their entirety, and pasting that elsewhere and forcing them to reply in a different and already very cluttered space, would greatly exacerbate confusion and endless walls of text, and add significantly to the already large byte count of an RfA. General Discussion sections at RfAs already have the problem that most of its sections are separated with page-wide scores instead of headers. The last thing we need are even more of those clunky seas of text in that section. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read plenty of RfAs where a concern was raised by multiple commenters, particularly because simply saying "per X" is discouraged, and so people have commented on each of them, often with nearly identical responses, and all of the threads proceeded with independent discussions. As a result, following the comments means having to follow all of those threads. A comment might get refuted in one of them, but not the others, and then a resulting meta discussion occurs, sometimes on the talk page, about whether or not commenters have seen the refutation. I appreciate your desire to keep comments next to the original stated viewpoints, and how that makes it easier for original commenter and responder to follow a specific discussion between the two of them. But for someone trying to keep up-to-date, it's really difficult following an ever-growing number of discussion threads branching off from the support/oppose sections. Consolidating discussion reduces the amount of text overall, as everyone can see all of the responses on one place, rather than having to look through multiple locations, and then ask if everyone has seen the responses in each place. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of a situation you found difficult to follow, and examples of how you would change the format to change that. Personally, I've never found it difficult to follow any RFA conversation that I actually wanted to follow, any more than I find it difficult to follow endlessly long RfCs or AfDs or other discussions. In fact, RfAs are the easiest types of surveys to follow because people don't interrupt the flow with "Comments" or unrelated points or subthreads. The !votes are all numbered, so that never happens. That's why an RfA is much easier to follow or analyze than an RfC or an AfD or a rambling article-talk discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of personal ways of keeping abreast, I suppose: I'd have to show you how I look at the diffs regularly to find new comments and try to understand their context, sometimes switching to the current page to browse through the scores of comments to try to find the new ones. It's not that easy to reconstruct after the fact. I've already proposed ways to change the format, but the participants here have made it clear they like the straw poll format with threaded responses trying to win over other commenters. Unfortunately this tends to personalize the discussion which makes it more acrimonious than necessary. (There are some who think we should make it more challenging for those who express unreasonable opinions, for some definition of unreasonable. While I understand the desire to set up negative incentives for unwanted behaviour, I think in many situations ignoring the commenter is one of the best negative incentives. Unfortunately, it's hard to put into practice.) isaacl (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Another question might be: Should !votes even be public, or should the voting be an anonymous process (while, of course, maintaining the possibility to ask questions and discuss candidates). The votes (or !votes) aren't just that for two reasons: 1) They usually include a rationale/explanation (in fact this is expected, particularly in the case of opposes) and 2) They include a name and identity which can range from user:super-cool-super-wikipedia-user-and-admin-and-arb to implausibly-obscure-dull-user-with-no-clout-whatsoever and (not ideally, but realistically) will influence opinions accordingly. Just an ignorant thought, but it might be worth handling RFAs more like we currently handle ARBCOM elections. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think the fear that RfAs can be unduly skewed by the !votes of "super cool users" is exaggerated at best. My sense is that many editors respect my judgments on the arbitration pages because I've spent some time on that role and it fits my skill-set, but give less credence to my !votes and comments on the RfA pages because I'm typically an easy "support" vote and don't take a lead in reviewing the candidates' records. When I do make a comment that draws subsequent votes of "per Newyorbrad", it's because that particular comment is perceived as well-expressed or well-researched or otherwise having merit, not because of my username attached to it. There are other editors whose views may have above-average weight on RfAs because they have attained a reputation for top-quality participation in the RfA process&mdash;but what's wrong with that? (There is also a logistical problem with the idea of anonymizing RfAs; it takes a significant amount of time to configure the SecurePoll interface for each election it's used for, and I don't think in its current incarnation it's practical to roll it out several dozen times a year&mdash;which isn't to say a better mousetrap couldn't be built if the community expressed a desire for one). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Brad (of whom it only later occurred to me that you fit the hypothetical super-cool-user-and-admin-and-arb mould. I didn't express that well at all with those two made-up users). I guess what I also meant is that the !votes have to include an argument (as in a set of reasonings and reasons) which, in turn, others might wish to discuss, contradict, have clarified, enhance, etc. Yet doing so in the list of Supports and Opposes personalizes and fragments discussion. Just for one example: there might be fewer complaints of badgering if a threaded discussion had a less positional and binary beginning than a post starting with Support/Oppose. When I add a new section to the threaded-discussion area, I am floating an idea, inviting comment. When I add my name to the supports or opposes, that might be all I wish to do, but I am obliged to add rationale (and not everyone sees adding only "per User:X" as sufficient).
 * But anyway, you're right very few people blindly follow the opinion of others, and your explanation of what is meant by "per Newyorkbrad" is certainly true far more often than not. It is also about trusting others rather than spending one's time doing too much research. I have seen people say something like "Support. If the candidate was nominated by X, while Y and Z have supported as well, then I see no reason to oppose", but I concede the point and it was a poor choice of two pseudo-extremes. I still think I'd favor some sort of clean separation of discussion and !vote, but this is not thought through at all (by me). ---Sluzzelin talk  21:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed above in the second clarification. Since it has received some talk about it, and there are other proposals that I have unrelated to this specific topic, we might make an WP:RFA2017 out of it. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 19:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, ok, I stay away from RFAs anyway, sorry. (￣ー￣) ---Sluzzelin talk  19:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above,, Arbcom elections are even more horrible and broken than RfA. The so called 'voter guides', and question sections are used to mercilessly attack the candidates and make fake character assassinations, and unlike RfA, nobody is around to refute them, because there is no discussion allowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The candidates can answer the questions, and the different voter guides all link to each other while disagreeing with each other vigorously. It is not a perfect system, but at least it elects the required number of arbitrators every year. We are still losing several admins per month. —Kusma (t·c) 09:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Kudpung. I see your point, and I've never liked the voter guides either (with the exception of the funny ones I agree with, of course ;-). It was a half-baked idea (see above) made late in the evening. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: y'all might want to see what I have made here. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 17:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Way too many proposals and none of them are going to happen. (except the "do nothing" one) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a first draft edition. Have hope. I invite you to directly give suggestions. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a small note to the person who opened the RfC and tried to ping me in the opening statement. Pings weren't working over the weekend and I didn't receive the ping. Apparently a fix was implemented yesterday. I only learnt of this from: Chris Troutman's talk page. I had to manually find my way here today. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)