Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues

MOVED: V. Formal moderation of RfA
I have moved this as a duplicate/subtopic statement of E. Corrosive RfA atmosphere and as more of a discussion of solutions appropriate for Phase 2 Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RfA discussion would be significantly less corrosive if we installed moderators with formalized duties, rights, and responsibilities.--John Cline (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

V. Support (agree)

 * 1) Notwithstanding the efforts of trusted volunteers who tried clerking RfA in the past, the lack of real authority and direction led to its discontinuation. I support formalizing the concept of moderating the RfA discussion while it's in progress. to maintain the collegiality expected while allowing for the expeditious removal of unambiguous incivility, personal attacks, and outright falsehoods .--John Cline (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) It may be the only solution if all else fails. It was discussed in depth at WP:RFA2011 but nothing came of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

V. Oppose (disagree)

 * 1) The issue seems more about setting the rules/limits/parameters rather than a lack of people willing to enforce them -- at least at this point. If there aren't many people acting in a moderator capacity at RfA, I think it's more because we have not, as a community, agreed on stricter rules that would allow for such moderation, and a potential moderator knows what sort of can of worms they'd be opening to apply a stricter standard. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Per N. You ultimately have to play RfA by ear, and having formal criteria, much less moderation, would be a bad idea in that light. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

V. Comments

 * I like the idea of having formal clerks for rfa similar to what we have for arbcom. I am worried though that such clerks will become "kingmakers" and have an outsized influence over the outcome. A combination of clear moderation standards, and trusted moderators, might work. At this point neither supporting nor opposing but open to the idea being further developed. Levivich 14:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As per the guidance for this phase, can we defer discussion of specific solutions until phase 2? I appreciate it's tempting to get into solutions; it's just helpful to structure discussion a bit so we aren't trying to discuss all proposed solutions at the same time. isaacl (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight and kind admonition. I agree that specifics regarding RfA moderation should be discussed in phase 2 if consensus emerges that the general idea has merit. I have stricken the portion of my comment that touched on possible specifics and join you, in asking others to evaluate the general idea of formal moderation now and the specifics in phase 2 if necessary. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your gracious response. My apologies for not choosing my words carefully enough; I did not intend to admonish. I just wanted to try to forestall everyone chipping in with their own proposed solutions, and then everyone adding their own variations of all proposals, and so forth, potentially overwhelming participants and causing them to lose interest. isaacl (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Isaacl, I am sorry that you were moved to apologise, or to feel that you chose words with inadequate care. In fact, your words were perfectly clear, insightful, and kind. The error was entirely mine for calling them an admonition. It happens that sometime ago, I adopted Mirriam Webster's definition: "to give friendly earnest advice or encouragement to" and have used it in this context ever since. Only today, after sensing its unintended affect on you, did I realized that many published sources defined the term more harshly, such as: to warm, reprimand, or scold. I won't be using the term anymore for its ambiguity and the apologies due are from me. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As per and, but it is a possible solution that cannot be ignored and should definitely be earmarked for future debate. The one problem is of course that of the 'Kingmakers' - some clerks at other noticeboards and elections do indeed appear to treat their position as one of the notches on their greasy pole to higher office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

MOVED: W. If non admins do well in the Arbcom elections, make them admins
I have moved this as more of a discussion of solutions appropriate for Phase 2 Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

There is support for an additional election style route to RFA, and Arbcom already holds elections and often has non admin candidates. Nobody should be voting for an Arbcom candidate who they wouldn't support for adminship, so as long as you give an addition in the oppose vote for non admin candidates "oppose but would support for adminship [ ] / Oppose for both Arbcom and adminship [  ]." At the end of the Arbcom election, any non admin candidates who have >=65% support for adminship become admins. RFA itself remains as the other of two routes for adminship.

W. Support (agree)

 * 1) As originator. This would probably require its own RFC and the 65% threshold might alter in that. Yes 65% is high for Arbcom support, but I'm assuming most Arbcom opposes are of the "fine admin, not one of my top five choices for Arbcom" Or ready for adminship, not yet ready for arbcom" Hence the "oppose for Arbcom but support for adminship" option. I'm assuming that as a straight vote we would not have the discussion needed for crats to weigh consensus and need a discretionary zone.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

W. Comments

 * I'm not against this. Indeed, I support this in priciple, but I'm worried about conflating the two processes. WormTT(talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have made allowances in the proposal for people to be able to vote that someone is ready for Adminship but not one of their choices for Arbcom. I'm assuming there will be no significant number of voters who want the option to support people for Arbcom who they don't think are suitable for adminship. We need to avoid giving an " I wouldn't even vote to reconfirm them as admin" option as I can see that would deter some admins from running for arbcom. If we ever end the arbcom elections with someone accidentally qualifying for an adminship they don't want I would think if they drop a note on the crats noticeboard we can avoid flipping the bit for them. So the only down side I can see is that we might have a glut of candidates running and swamping the Arbcom election with people who really don't want to be on Arbcom, if that happens we could split the process - but I think it more likely that this additional route gives us an extra handful of admins per year.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this since my initial comment, and I can probably expand on my concerns.
 * The Arbcom elections are already complex enough and a higher level of scrutiny than RfA. Election guides, multiple weeks of voting and scrutineering, and so on - appear to add to all the problems of RfA, rather than take away from them.
 * The purpose behind ACE is to find a group of individuals who would work well as a committee. RfA is focussed on one individual and their suitability with admin tools. Conflating these two questions either increases the workload or does disservice to one of the questions
 * What's more, there is an order of magnitude increase in voters on ACE over RfA - so that workload increase also happens to a lot of community members.
 * I'm struggling to think of benefits to codifying this, and the complexities adding a "I want this person as an admin, not an arb" button for non-admins, but not for admins, also should we have a "I want this person as an arb but not an admin" button? WormTT(talk) 13:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought everyone who ended up being elected to ArbCom were in practice admins. Perhaps we could simplify this proposal to "election to ArbCom automatically grants the mop". This is an interesting idea but I don't know whether it'll significantly beef up the admin corps. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we have yet elected a non admin to Arbcom. This is more about making admins of those non admin candidates for Arbcom who do better than some admins but don't get elected to Arbcom.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In principle, I'm entirely fine with this. I agree with WTT above that conflating two elections is an issue, that's probably surmountable. The larger question is what impact this has on the set of candidates. AFAICS no non-admins have cleared the 65% threshold since 2014. Will this change if this becomes a route to adminship? Will more candidates run? Will the desire to see some candidates become admins affect the outcome of the ARBCOM elections? I don't really have good answers. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This RfC found a "strong consensus" against giving +sysop even to successful candidates. This proposal could give it to certain unsuccessful candidates as well, and as such would be likely to provoke even more opposition. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see annual admin elections as an additional process, but I'd rather have them separate from the Arbcom elections (they could be at the same time, though). —Kusma (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. I made a "test-the-waters" run for ArbCom in 2014 and got a lousy 17.74% support. Worse than the support level was that the community couldn't distinguish me from another candidate who later got pushed off the project for sock puppetry. I was thinking of running for Admin at that time but the experience discouraged me from trying for adminship for another eight months. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree/Disagree
I feel like Agree/Disagree would be better names for the sections, since this is just Phase 1 (identifying if editors agree that certain problems exist, rather than deciding on solutions, which will be Phase 2). Support/Oppose threw me off a little. Just a thought. — Goszei (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Goszei I have added agree/disagree in parenthesis. The wording here was building off the 2015 process which was functional, but the idea of clarifying this seems reasonable and unlikely to upset anyone who has already participated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Privacy as an issue
One possible solution I'd like to see considered in stage 2 is having blind !voting. For here, there doesn't seem to be a section on "the problem is that it's stressful to see others in real time choosing to !vote against you". Would it make sense to add something for that? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on your link target, which talks about anonymous voting using, for example, SecurePoll, do you just mean "voting" (by secret ballot)? The "not-vote" terminology doesn't seem to apply, and blind voting sounds more like the identity of the candidate is being hidden. isaacl (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This section is somewhat of relevance. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  15:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good points. I !voted in that section and meant secret ballot, not blind ballot. There's a little possibility secret !votes could still be judged for consensus by a closing crat (who would be able to see them), but yeah, in that case it would more likely be a straight vote. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really mean "secret not-votes", that is, secretly submitted viewpoints with rationales? I think this would be difficult to put into effect. Counting votes in secret is a straightforward, auditable procedure. Auditing how viewpoints were weighed in secret is onerous in effort, and requires a lot of community trust in the auditors. Alternatively the viewpoints could be anonymized and released for anyone to audit, but then much of the advantage of allowing editors to express their viewpoints in private is lost. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2021
 * When comments, usually Opposes, are personal statements about deficiencies of the candidate, I think it's important to attribute them to a specific editor. People need to be accountable for public statements about another editor, they shouldn't be anonymous, or at least any more anonymous than Wikipedia already is. At least, that's how I feel as a former candidate. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What said! Oppose votes should be opportunities for the candidates to improve, not just to be pummelled. I wrote User:Cabayi/RFA No (and looking at it again, it needs rewriting) for responding to bare Oppose votes, though I haven't used it yet. Cabayi (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of straight oppose votes without a rationale, as these don't have the potential to damage the candidate as much as the usual out-of-context diffs. I wish we would not challenge them. There are also oppose reasons (bad feelings about a candidate, lack of trust) that are difficult to articulate in a manner that is fair on the candidate. Rationales, on the other hand, are often used to pummel candidates and denying that they could possibly have improved, when diffs or blocks or AfDs from a long time ago are discussed while completely ignoring that the candidate has improved in the five years since. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Long-term vision
We are now 20+ years old, and we are discussing like the issues which have been important for the last 20 years would remain important forever. Sure, we want to have a sum of human knowledge, and the order must be somehow kept. But are we so sure that things remain the same forever? That in 20 years text, and not video, will remain the primary way of consuming knowledge? That editing video (and this will sure become available in the coming years) will not completely shift the information consumption? That we are not going to have AI capable of solving much of current admin work (pretty much everything which is not immediately behavior related)? Do we actually have any long-term vision on the future of Wikipedia, and is this vision aligned with that of the WMF?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The issues have already changed their relative importance. Simple vandalism is often prevented by edit filters or reverted by bots, so we don't need the army of anti vandal admins of 15 years ago as much. If something radically new comes along, I would expect that some other community will work with that and Wikipedia will slowly fade. But we don't know whether that will happen in 5 years or in 50. So I'm not sure why we should plan for it. —Kusma (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We used to worry that vandalism might overwhelm the community, now the worry is more about spam. Looking at this particular discussion it just isn't true that we are discussing issues that have been important for twenty years. Up until early 2008 RFA was producing floods of new admins, and I suspect most of us now would be happy if we got back to the situation in 2011, I'd be somewhat reassured if we could get back to the way RFA was in 2013. As for longterm visions, one of the best ways to get them is to try to fix longterm problems.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Unbundle
If there was a section for unbundling the tools, I'd agree with that. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Bison X right now we're trying to identify what the problems are. Depending on what issues gain consensus, if any, I could certainly see unbundling the tools offered as a solution in phase 2. For now I would encourage you to think of what problem(s) it would solve and support unbundling (and any other solutions you're in favor of). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure unbundle everything so that the only special privilege admins have is blocking others and handing out privileges like trick-or-treat candy. That's sure to solve the problem of not having enough admins and to motivate dozens to run for administrator every year. wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added an entry M
. But I am unsure if it is allowed for others to submit their own proposals for this RfA? PS. My reading of 'instructions for voters' suggests this is possible as long as the new section is not duplicating issues already raised, which I believe it is not. Still, since it seems I am the first person to add a new section to this RfA, I wanted to double check this is ok. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes it is absolutely intended to allow others to suggest issues. @Piotrus would you consider shortening, collapsing, and/or moving your rather extended explanation, especially compared to the 1 or two sentences for other possible problems? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point - does it look better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, RfC? Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Header level
This would be a lot easier to navigate on mobile if the individual questions were lvl2 rather than lvl3 headers. I fear we miss out on mobile editors' opinions when we use formatting that only really works on desktop. Levivich 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Mobile editors miss out on lots of things by not clicking the little link at the bottom that gives them access to a fully functional version of Wikipedia (I don't know why it is labeled "Desktop"). If somebody knows Wikipedia well enough to have useful opinions on RfA, they should know how to access Wikipedia on their phone (there are several "responsive" skins that -- unlike the "mobile" version -- don't randomly hide things from the user). TLDR: Mobile is broken. Don't work around it, ask the WMF to fix it. —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Idk what size screen you have but on my iPhone, desktop view on mobile is also unusable because everything is too small. Zoomed in, I can't see enough of the page to be useful. That's why the "desktop" link is this tiny link at the bottom: it's not popular among mobile users. Who, by the way, are half of us, and for many of us (though not me), they're on mobile because they can't afford a desktop. So it's not really a good solution IMO to tell people to use desktop (not an option for everyone), get the WMF to change desktop (which won't happen before this RfC is over), or don't participate in the RfC at all. We should make things mobile-friendly, for example, by changing the header levels, which, by the way, will improve things for mobile users while not making things any harder for anyone else, so I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to that. :-) Levivich 18:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Try the "Timeless" skin, or Monobook in "responsive" mode. I have no idea why these aren't the default. —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Those aren't mobile skins. Levivich 20:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They are desktop skins that are usable on a phone, unlike Vector. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Levivich. With level 3 headers, the page is already hard to navigate in mobile. The difficult will only increase as the page become longer. Unlike a lot of problems with mobile that is outside community's control, this has a trivial fix by changing the header level. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

General comment from The Blade of the Northern Lights
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Kay sarah sarah. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Idem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposals P & Q
I don't quite understand what the problem identified in P & Q. It seems instead like they are proposals for what we should do, which is designed for Phase 2. Can you clarify? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not respond to this sooner, real life events had to take precedence. I proposed P & Q in response to comments that the standards to become an admin were set too high. If the bar was lowered, because the expectations for the admin position were lowered, then we might attract more candidates. If others feel that it does not belong here, then it can be removed from consideration. I do think, however, that Proposal P has generated a good discussion on whether the community should consider unbundling. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion and other changes
I previously had boldly transcluded the talk page. I brought this (and other changes) up privately with who had some concerns about how long it made the page, so I've self reverted pending further discussion. I additionally made some other changes which this section can also discuss. The four still live are reducing the TOC depth from 3 to 2 so that it is more compact, changing the voter instructions to bulleted form for easier scanning, and shortening the title of two sections (which I brought up on the user's talk page). — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Wugapodes I removed the. Toc right because it made the header look like this (probably a mobile issue): Ex am ple &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  07:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

numbering in open discussion sections?
Seems like we're using numbering on comments in discussion sections, which seems wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. When I was setting up the sections I intentionally put a # as the empty piece in support/oppose and * in comments but then people started using # anyway. Not sure what's up with that myself but decided if that's what people wanted to do.... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't even like the bullet points; it often triggers issues with changes in list styles, and requires some convolutions to have multiple paragraphs within one bullet point. isaacl (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure : could have worked too but #? Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What if we had frank open un-delineated comments in discussion sections but only if it's said quietly— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer just using paragraphs for different comments. I don't know why people felt like numbering them; off-hand I can't think of any other discussion on English Wikipedia where that's done. Technically my original response was a bit off-topic from the first post. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes agreed. That's what I meant in my comment sorry if that didn't come across :) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought using "#" was appropriate considering this is what is used in an RfA. I thought it was an homage! Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The support and oppose statements are numbered, but the general comments section isn't. isaacl (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see this
I'm sure it's quite obvious that I'm not active much these days, but I did happen to come across this. As the originator of the RFA2015 project (at the same time that I was running for RFA myself, no less), I'm glad to see that someone is courageous enough to make another go at the seemingly impossible task of trying to make common-sense changes.

Admittedly the 2015 reforms did not make quite the difference in the process that I was aiming for. But I do think it was an important step in the sense of just managing to pass anything at all for the first time. I hope the 2015 project does at least continue to provide a useful blueprint for this effort. Maybe this one will be more successful, if participants are willing to reasonably and realistically confront the situation. Mike (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Closing
I asked if would be interested in closing this and he agreed. I am guessing this would be a close where having a 2nd or even 3rd person to divide up the work and provide sanity checks would be helpful so I note this if any other qualified uninvolved may be interested in joining him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, maybe this could be a job for our underutilized bureaucrats which is fitting since they handle the closing of RfAs. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Changes to RfA could redefine the role of bureaucrats. It might be better to have them take part in the discussion. —Kusma (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With this I'm on Kusma - some of the likely proposals we've already seen (which would presumably be more properly considered in phase 2) would heavily deprecate 'crats (using securepoll), others would significantly expand their remit ('crats being able to directly grant the bit). Primefac is a good call, (despite being a crat!) and hopefully there will be one or two others who aren't crats to help as BK49 notes, so they can actively participate Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to help close. I don't have the time or interest to actively participate, but I'd be wiling to read and summarize the discussion at the conclusion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Courtesy ping to @Primefac so you two can connect and discuss as needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac, Wugapodes: Thanks for taking this on. I haven't been keeping up so I'm not going to offer any opinions on the current RfC, but I just want to mention that I think the previous RfC on clerking may be relevant here. Bottom line: I thought there was a superconsensus at the time in favor of someone doing something ... but not random people, not admins, and not some newly appointed group ... i.e., not anyone who wasn't already a bureaucrat. I might have been wrong, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 01:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As this nears its 30 days, only around 110 editors have taken part in this huge discussion, but the major contributions seem to be equally shared by the top ten participants. That said, closing is going to be a monster task. Naturally no one who has taken part except those who have made format or cosmetic changes should be a closer. Ideally, the work should be done by different users separately formally  closing (purple boxing) each section, then issuing a joint statement. It's certainly going to be interesting, and while I'm no longer very active, I look forward to the points that will be  taken up for Phase 2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung fortunately we have two closers who have the skill and the qualifications (i.e. lack of participation) for this discussion. I look forward to seeing what they say as we wrap up this phase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * and I have been in touch by email about the timeline. We will put up atop and abot on 29 September and spend the next week reading and drafting a summary of the discussion. We expect the closing statement to be posted around 7 October, but it might be delayed depending on our other obligations. We'll keep you updated if things change. As for the format of the close, I imagine it looking like Kudpung described with a holistic summary preceding the outcomes of each individual statement. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A metric of trust?
An idea that isn't quite ready for prime-time: editors who have agreed to the WMF's disclosure of non-public agreement only require 50% support (subject to bureaucrat discretion) to pass RFA. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 19:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would signing the agreement increase trust in an editor? You or I can sign it right now, and since (apparently) they don't ask for real identities anymore I guess you could sign it as "power~enwiki" and that would be fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "An editor who has signed the WMF's disclosure of non-public data agreement may be appointed as admin by majority vote of the arbitration committee", then? If the WMF is satisfied that the requirements for private data access are met, surely Foundation Legal concerns about access to private data cannot be a restriction against other community-determined ways of appointing admins. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct, but only about the part that this idea is not ready for prime time, or even late night. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All an editor's signature on that thing means is that they're 16+ if they're on the OTRS team or 18+ for the stewards and functionaries. People that can be trusted with handling sensitive information ≠ people that can necessarily be trusted with the block/delete/protect buttons. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

General comment from GN
I've talked to two editors considering RfA in the near-ish future who said that they are hesitant to even comment at this RfC because they're afraid that their opinions, whatever those opinions might be, will get used against them somehow at their RfA. I think that's a pretty clear signal that something is wrong with RfA. Admin candidates shouldn't have to be playing that kind of politics. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if I was planning to run RfA I would stay a mile from this RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on a recent RfA question that asked the candidate whether they thought RfA was too toxic and the number of editors who seem to think being reluctant to undergo a trial-by-fire means the person somehow isn't tough enough for adminship, I'd have to agree that commenting on this RfC might in fact be used to oppose candidacy. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunate for many reasons, but thinking as a closer, an effective consensus process incorporates feedback from all stakeholders so losing out on the constituency closest to the issue risks finding a false consensus. since you know particular editors and are facilitating this discussion (respectively) would either of you be willing to consider how we could incorporate their feedback into the discussion? Off the top of my head, I imagine some sort of "consultation" where you collect feedback from soon-to-be RfA candidates through personal correspondence and then provide a de-identified summary of their concerns as a group here so that editors can take it into consideration. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to act as an intermediary for the two editors I have in mind (and if any other RfA hopefuls are in a similar situation, feel free to contact me privately using the communication medium of your choice). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also happy to serve as proxy for these comments in my role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think and  raise a very  valid point. That  said,, I  came out  of retirement  to  do  you  a favour  and add my  2p to  this monster RfC. Do  you  realise that  although  I'm experienced at  this kind of thing, it  took me two whole hours to  do it? Most of my precious Sunday evening. Heck, I  must  be mad. Get  me out  of here! And keep me away from NPP too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The time every interested editor spend on this is most appreciated. I think it's been a positive discussion and sets things up nicely for what I anticipate will be the second phase (as it seems unlikely to me statement A will have consensus and seems like other statements will). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At a glance, it looks like a lot of people did very good work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Idle musings
What strikes me about all this is just how little new is on the table. All the topics here have previously been discussed many times over; every idea for change has been floated before, often by a dozen or more different people. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, I'm not even sure how impactful the issues with RFA are in the first place, still I can't help but feeling like the wheels are spinning, but we're not getting anywhere fast.

Some questions aren't really answerable anyway. Is administrator an undesirable position? Well, no amount of cajoling is going to convince me to grab a mop and I'm hardly alone in that sentiment, but there are quite a few people who would jump at the opportunity if offered, it just depends on the person. Of course, there's a tendency to see a desire for adminship as a bad thing, even if most of them would do just fine in the end.

I've probably read less then half as much about RFA reform as some of the more dedicated minds that have contributed to the topic over the years, and have certainly forgotten at least twice as much. So I'll be the last one to claim any certain knowledge as to if, or how RFA is broken. Still I can't help but think back to what Linuxbeak wrote more than a decade and a half ago, "Some people have raised the question: 'what about RFA is broken?' Well, it looks like we've got a pretty solid answer here. It's not the process, but the voters themselves. I believe it is safe to say that there is solid agreement that most, if not all, of RFA's problems stem from the voters. Now, the challenge is to fix that. If there is a problem with the voters, then the something needs to be done to address the concerns of the community. As of right now, I am uncertain of how to do this" Ancient history to some, but just as easily could've been written yesterday. Regards, 2A0A:C802:4:1:0:0:0:2D (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, and for closing this RfA. No mean task. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. A high quality job for which I'm most appreciative. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well done indeed, thank you both. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree as well; very nice job.--John Cline (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done!, Thanks also to all participants. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)