Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clerks

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Closed
This RFC is closed as unsuccessful. There have been no edits since 17 February (almost two months ago) and only about one-third support, with compelling arguments on the oppose side. Non-admin closure; obviously if any admin wants to revert and suggest a different result, I won't stand in the way. Chutznik (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments
This request for comments is to propose amending the existing Requests for adminship process to include a provision for clerks to assist with the administration and running of requests for adminship. The full proposal can be read at Requests for adminship/Clerks.

Since it is anticipated that this RFC will likely attract a lot of attention, it has been structured as a straw poll. Please indicate below if you support or oppose this proposal, and allow any extended discussions to take place in the Discussion section. The closing admin may take both the results of the straw poll and the content of the discussion section into account when closing this RFC.

RfC started on 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

Support

 * 1) Support as proposer. I feel that the current RfA process picks the right candidates and rejects the wrong ones in most cases.  However, it does so in a very abrasive and intimidating way.  I believe that what's needed to push RfA in the right direction is to give some neutral observers the authority to ensure that the abrasive and intimidating qualities of RfA are minimized.  It is my hope that, once RfA is a more inviting place, more qualified candidates will be willing to put themselves through it.  ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _  23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems like a quite thorough proposal. Something needs to be done. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Very well thought-out and a clear step in the right direction. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - this provision is long overdue! -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I do have a couple concerns with some of the wording but none are a show stopper for me. I'll submit something in the next day or two unless someone beats me too it.Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Sure. This definitely sounds like it can make an RfA run smoother.  I'd be willing to take up clerking too since I'm very passionate about RfAs.— cyberpower ChatOnline 01:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, I hope this will help to reduce the hostility at RfA, as I think it causes us to needlessly lose out on good potential candidates. I'll make some minor suggestions for improvements below, but this is a great idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support An idea whose time has come.  Mini  apolis  03:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Support although I'm a bit skeptical of giving existing admins free passes to be clerks, because this seems to make adminship an even bigger deal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Doesn't go far enough. Substitutes civility police for real reform, and some Wikipedians are good at being nasty without being technically "uncivil", so I doubt if it'll really take much of the sting out of RFA.  But from where we are today, virtually any change is improvement, so support.— S Marshall  T/C 08:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support the problem this proposal is trying to address is real and serious, and I don't think the proposal itself will do more harm than good. Those arguing that some people already have the power to do this are ignoring the fact that they don't do it. Hut 8.5 22:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Calming down RFA and moving it away from "reject X because of [place minor concern]" would be an excellent idea; this wouldn't necessarily solve the problem in its entirety, but would be a decent step.  dci  &#124;  TALK   15:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Sven is right: 'crats are supposed to be doing this, in theory. But are they in a consistent way? I think most 'crats view their job more like people who run the desk at the local Dept. of Motor Vehicles, rubber stamping decisions by the community. Not people ultimately responsible for ensuring every RfA is constructive. Why not give this a try and see if it makes RfA better? Since this is a social convention and not a user right, we can always dismantle the clerking system if we want. Steven Walling &bull;  talk   21:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support in principle and as per Steve Walling, withe caveat that the crats have already stated that they do not wish to be incumbent with clerking - that's why they never do it, never did it, and won't do it in the future.  The final details can be worked out when at least consesus is reached to introduce someformal system of clerking. This RfC is not the place to bicker over the details.   --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) As long as they are experianced and friendly, yes. Vao Tv1 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - An excellent proposal that would help to defuse some unnecessary unpleasantness that arises at RfAs. If neutral clerks were responsible for administrative tasks (i.e., making sure that edit statistics get posted, fixing formatting problems in discussions, investigating allegations of canvassing, and doing NOTNOW closures), discussions would no longer get sidetracked by issues about administrative aspects (as they often are now). --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak Support - RfAs could hardly be worse than they are now and this proposal could go some way to limiting the more blatant trolling/baiting/badgering that currently occurs. It's a weak support because of some of the valid ctiticisms voiced by some of the very respected dissenters below. It does create another level of bureaucracy and makes a bigger deal out of something that should be "no big deal". However, to do nothing would be even worse. RfA IS dysfunctional and we should be searching for ways to fix it. For me, it does not go far enough and I would support a more radical overhaul but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Jschnur (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'm reasonably sure that the people inclined to act as clerks will have a far too liberal definition of "disruption".  Plus, if the only appeal of a clerk's decision is to the other clerks, then this is clique would have too much power. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to assume good faith? Also, I'm sure any clerk caught being too liberal with their definition of disruptive would be quickly warned that this is the case. Hundreds of people participate in RfAs these days. There is no way a clerk would be able to remove a constructive comment without at least one of them noticing. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 03:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * People that immediately resort to bullshit tactics like "wouldn't it be better to assume good faith" are the type of people who would volunteer for clerkship, and the type of people I don't want to decide what stays and what goes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case you could oppose clerkship for them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What Jasper (and Dank below) said. For what it's worth, I think labeling another contributor's comments as "bullshit tactics" is completely unnecessary. Despite that, it would not be the kind of comment that would be removed by the clerks. A set of criteria would have to be agreed upon, but the way I'm reading the proposal at the moment is that comments would only normally be removed if they are patent nonsense or violate the civility policies (especially NPA). &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 04:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For appeals, "they may post a complaint to the RfA clerks' noticeboard." I see nothing that says that only clerks can participate in consensus there. But it might not be a bad idea to have crats make the call on consensus on the appeal there. Would you prefer some other appeal process? As for "disruption", surely clerks won't be deciding what "disruption" means, only following consensus. (We may want to do another RfC after this one to answer that question.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised at  Floque's concerns that  clerks would all be people having a far too liberal definition of "disruption" and resorting  to  'bullshit' tactics - ironically  I can imagine Floque as ideally  fulfilling  a clerking  role... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) While I see where this proposal is coming from, I don't think it would be a practical solution to the "RfA problem", as there are a number of serious issues with the proposal as presented. Specifically:
 * 2) "any steps necessary to ensure that RfA is as drama-free and stress-free as possible for the candidate" - while drama is unfortunate, lack of stress for candidates should not be a primary goal. Admins are frequently required to deal with stressful situations, and do so with poise and without losing their cool. Also, what about stress for participants other than the candidate? Reducing candidate stress, while admirable, could easily result in drama because it ignores other stakeholders.
 * 3) It's unclear who can participate at the clerk's noticeboard - just clerks, or anyone?
 * 4) Some of the "clerk requirements" are easily gamed - actually, the whole system is open to gaming, and relies on participants to (potentially) comb through page histories to catch potential irregularities, and report them to...the other clerks
 * 5) "Clerks...have the authority to take actions in the best interest of the RfA and the candidate" - this is a huge judgement call with no clear community baseline from which to judge. These goals are also potentially contradictory - the specific RfA doesn't have "interests", but RfA in general has a need to be fair, and to be seen to be fair
 * 6) "Put any RfA on hold if it has run for at least 7 full days (to prevent late votes), and notify bureaucrats that the RfA closure is overdue, if necessary" - this is contrary to current practice, which holds that 7 full days is a minimum and not a maximum
 * 7) "Fix any transclusion errors with the RfA page" - counterproductive; generally speaking, failure to properly transclude is a flag for an RfA that would be better off not being transcluded
 * 8) "non-clerks must not perform any of the clerk-only tasks" - CREEPy and unnecessary. If a blocked sock voted, for example, there is absolutely no reason why any random user couldn't strike it
 * 9) "Investigate any potential voting irregularities (like canvassing and sockpuppetry)" - investigate how? On-wiki canvassing is obvious, but is usually raised by voters anyways; other irregularities will mostly be beyond the remit of a clerk (ie. either off-wiki or requiring CU)
 * 10) Other clerk-only tasks: per Floq. These types of determinations have historically been more likely to raise drama than reduce it, and varying standards for CIVIL in particular will make this a point of contention
 * 11) Appeals: just no. Admins and editors have always been free to revert each others' actions, and I see no justification for restricting that here, particularly given the possibility of varying opinions. Also per Floq. Dank: as I read it, the proposal suggests the clerk use their own discretion to determine "disruptive", not any community consensus. Pyfan: sure, I'll assume good faith, as I do in editing...but I will also politely reverse the inappropriate action, and this proposal attempts to restrict that part of the process. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On 10: I see what you mean. Perhaps the appellate section of the proposal should be removed, and the normal processes for disputes apply. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 04:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Implementing this risks the creation of an exclusive, insular cabal of administrators and veterans, lacking adequate checks on their discretionary power, and with the potential to 'circle the wagons' defensively in response to criticism. If the proposition involves empowering administrators, enabling them to neutralise discussions at their discretion, then it heralds a significant deviation from JDW's idea of the toolkit as 'no big deal' and instead reiterates their authority. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 04:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC).
 * 2) You mean 'crats, right? Because I'm pretty sure that this is something that 'crats should be doing, but aren't.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Umm no. Just no.
 * 4) RFA is not a thread of /r/CircleJerk. I have a fear that this proposal, and many proposals of its type, have this idea that everyone with X edits should be an admin. This isn't so. There are many people who have all of the checkboxes checked but I would still oppose for other reasons. (Antandrus' 22nd observation) Many times the "stress" and "drama" is voters bringing up past events that the person running for admin would like the voting community not to see. I fear that the broad, unchecked, and unspecified nature of the clerk's powers could easily be used by a group to turn RFA into a oppose free zone.
 * 5) This would make yet another hat for people to collect. The pool of non-admins who I would be comfortable with clerking that would have an interest in this task is near zero. There are a few but their numbers are tiny. As far as admins go, not every admin should be a clerk. We have a group already that could do it in theory: the crats. Over their history they have adopted a more milquetoast role in the process. I would rather invest more power in them than create a whole new class of editors. RfBs are tough, and if an editor can get 80% of the community to agree that they are sane, they have the stripes to do the job.
 * 6) The admin corps can't enforce civility anywhere else. What makes you think that giving 25 people a virtual fez would change anything? The arbcom clerks have the full power of the committee behind us and our record is spotty at best. I can point to a batch of cases that have devolved into a mud throwing match. Even with the internal appeals process I promise you that the clerks will be at the whims of the community-at-large via AN or ANI.
 * 7) Generally all of Nikkimaria's procedural objections. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  06:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) No thanks. We don't need more exceptions to the foolish-seeming yet wise rule that anyone may edit any page. Having clerks with censorship rights on RfA pages will also probably lead to meta-discussion about the clerks at some other board (say, WP:ANI, or multiple user talk pages). As a general observation, adding more rules, policies, and procedures doesn't seem to be a good way of solving Wikipedia's problem of having more rules, policies, and procedures than anybody can be expected to know, deal with, or keep up with. —Kusma (t·c) 09:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) I can think of few things that would make the current situation worse, but sadly this is one of them. The solution is to make the role of adminship less ridiculous – by splitting the mutually exclusive roles of janitor and judge – which would in turn allow us to judge candidates' suitability for the two wildly different roles in a more rational way. While I don't dispute that there are people capable of doing both, and indeed that some of those people are admins, adminship is a problem because enables mouthy, bureaucratic, immature halfwits claim to be cleaners whilst spectacularly failing in their preferred roles as decision makers. This proposal goes further, as we run the considerable risk of appointing apprentice bureaucratic halfwits to more-or-less arbitrarily censor the community's only means of holding prospective admins to account. I'm sorry if the wording of the last two sentences strike a nerve with some. I use those words because they truly reflect how strongly some people feel about admins in general. That mentality is not good for the community as a whole, and not fair on admins who do not exhibit those traits, but it exists for a reason, and we need to do something about it. There are comments at RfA which are disruptive to the point that they need to be removed, but creating a cabal which has an explicit mandate to censor and influence the result of the RfA is not the way forward. The best way to achieve the underlying aim of this proposal would be to stop threatening to block people for having the temerity to silence obvious trolls. Redefining the role of adminship would obviously solve the real problem, because judges should be subjected to the current level of scrutiny and pressure, whilst cleaners should not. But frankly there is more chance of Watford Football Club winning next year's Super Bowl than of us having the collective capacity to sort the system out. If the nom will forgive me for speculating about his intentions, my guess is that this proposal is at least partly about ensuring that we do something, and thereby stave off direct action from Jimbo. If so I admire the intention, but unfortunately that threat exists because the situation is bad enough to warrant extreme steps. Putting the deckchairs in an even more dangerous position is not the answer. We need to get off the doomed ship, and build a new one which is fit for purpose. —WFC— FL wishlist 09:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) An interesting proposal, which of course has come up before, but in my opinion this adds an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy regarding known problems that the community already has a handle on as a collective  Jebus989 ✰ 11:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) This proposal brilliantly demonstrate how strongly is Wikipedian culture infested with hypocrisy. The position of WP: Arbitration Committee/Clerks is a servant's position. It is a position subordinate to the Committee, who actually make decisions. An arbitration clerk can't influence a decision of the Committee. But RfA is another matter. Here, the community makes decisions, and the proposed competence of "RfA clerk" can influence it. The position proposed is called a policeman, not clerk. Those who want a policeman, call him a policeman, please. Don't lie. Don't demand lies. Don't listen to a liar. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. I would prefer to see bureaucrats undertaking these activities. Bureaucrats are entrusted by the community to evaluate RfA outcomes and comments. Admins, let alone regular editors, have not.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was my first thought, as well. I've linked to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... which, it seems, was the wrong place. It's already been linked to from BN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Per Sven and Axl, this is the crats' job, and while I'm sympathetic to the mindset of "well, if they won't do their jobs, someone has to," trying a format with divorced-from-crats clerks, serving no one in particular and cleaning up based on their own untested (wrt RFA) judgment, seems like an idea destined to crash and burn. Not because clerks would be inherently incompetent, or because this proposal is, but because piling another layer of bureaucracy on top of one that's crumbling leaves the top layer no solid foundation to base itself off of. With no crat involvement to model what judgment they take into account for RFA closes/handling, how could clerks ever hope to reach something resembling accuracy or reliability? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per Floq, Sven, and Axl. There are already highly trusted editors who can do this in extreme cases, and I too worry about overzealous clerks shutting down what I would consider to be reasonable discussions. —Torchiest talkedits 16:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, I don't think another layer of bureaucracy is the answer, nor do I like the idea of RFA-censors. Obvious incivility could be dealt with currently, non-obvious incivility is too difficult to remove without it appearing to be censorship. I do think a change needs to be made, I don't know what it is, but I don't think this is it. I'm more inclined to support the separation of tools. James086 Talk  17:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as yet another attempt to suppress unpopular opinions at RFA. Skinwalker (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Apart from the points above, it would be another job-for-life with no recourse if it is abused. And I especially don't like that clerks would appoint themselves to the RfAs of their choice. Warden (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I'm not especially comfortable with the self-appointment provisions or the fact that there are no "term limits" or actual removal procedures included in the original proposal. There is, instead, some language about "being asked to refrain from clerking" if there are enough complains about a clerk's actions. To me this just seems to replicate the "for life" aspects of much of Wikipedia's structure. The idea that admins would automatically be accepted as clerks is also troubling. Any clerk proposal should, IMO, include both a defined application and confirmation process (for all users) and term length/limits. Intothatdarkness 19:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose: The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to expand on this to explain this vote a bit more clearly. It is rare in history that when something is vexed by a problem, the solution is to add bureaucracy. This is in fact what this proposal is attempting to do; add significant layers of bureaucracy to 'solve' the problem. There is significant potential for large, unintended consequences to this proposal. One of them; if you're trusted enough to be a clerk, you should easily be trusted to be an admin. Then we have admins controlling the progression of RfAs. That is a serious problem. Another; the duties entail significant subjective evaluations. The arguments over those decisions will be enormous. And on and on. I'm picking at the tip of the iceberg here. I also see, yet again, a proposal being made to modify the RfA process with there being no explanation as to what problem this is supposed to solve. People love creating bureaucracy. It's easy. It takes a great deal of courage to reduce bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll go add that to the "Third broad category". And Hammer, if my RfC swims and doesn't sink, all you have to do is make the case, during the second round, that a thorough investigation of the problems to be solved needs to come before anything else ... or, conduct that thorough investigation, there will be plenty of time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't expect that will happen. Rather, I expect there will be a mass change to RfA without there being much appropriate ground work done. This might come from the community or Jimbo, but if change comes to RfA that will be how it happens. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: This seems overly bureaucratic and I fear it'd make the RfA pages more inward-looking and less friendly to potential candidates. I'd prefer 'crats to be more proactive in monitoring the pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: I see the proposal. I see the minute details of this clerking. I see no argument as to why this is a good idea. Wikipedia needs more bureaucracy like it needs one of the servers to explode. In the absence of a damn good rationale that a) there is a specific problem and b) this is the way to solve that problem, we should stay steady. Danger High voltage! 06:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: I'm not opposed to some form of light clerking, but this proposal gives unelected clerks far too much power. People oppose for a wide variety of reasons that make sense to them, and it would be too easy for clerks to define many good-faith opposes as unreasonable. Also, as Nikkimaria states, attempting to remove stress for candidates for a position that can be extremely stressful seems counterproductive. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose would turn non-elected clerks into the Vote Police, complete with the ability to remove discussions they deem inappropriate. We trust the bureaucrats with these tasks up to a point, but having unelected clerks who may or may not have the trust of the community do it is a terrible idea. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Floq. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Floquenbeam. --John (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I understand the concept here, but feel it actually just creates more red tape, more drama and more headaches. --Amadscientist (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I'm not clear on what positive difference it would make, and am concerned it would create more drama. Candidates are generally uncomfortable going through a RfA because their Wikipedia conduct and personality is examined sometimes very rigorously. Would clerks remove negative comments, or those supporting / "piling on" the negative comments? That wouldn't be appropriate. Would clerks tackle personal attacks, or move inappropriate discussions to the talkpage? That is already done by admins or other members of the community. It seems that any action they take would be a judgement call, but their action would be supported by them being an "RfA clerk" - which supposes that their judgement would not be questioned or reversed. If they are not to be supported by their actions being binding, then their proposed role is already being done by the community. Incidents which require intervention are rare. And even an RfA clerk could not (should not) stop a controversial candidate being rigorously examined. I don't think this proposal will make RfA any more comfortable for candidates, but may cause problems when questionable actions are done by an RfA clerk, however well meaning.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In actual  fact, Silk,  that  is quite inaccurate. Inappropriate and disingenuous voting is everything  else but  rare, but what  is rare to  the point  of being  practically  non existent  is when the community  does anything  about the treachery and viperous comments. Anyone following  the discussions over the past  couple weeks will    understand that  the proposer(s) of this poll  are fully  in  favour of a rigorous examination  of candidates and maintaining  high standards for candidates. What  is needed is a breath of fresh air at  Arbcom, and a more active corps of bureaucrats, but  as far as those are concerned, the community  can keep hoping. You  are missing  the point  when you  oppose on  the basis that  clerking  is being  asked for in  order to influence the voting, and by  such a  reasoning, we would be perfectly  entitled to have absolutely  no faith  whatsoever in  Arbcom  and its clerks. What  happens is than when finally  something  does get  done about  the nastiness at RfA or misbehavaiour of admins, it  goes to  Arbcom which then traditionally  makes an even bigger mess of the issue however well meaning, and the committee members show themselves to  be equally  capable of attacks and inappropriate comments. So  where does reform start? It starts here with  a bit  of encouragement  for those who  have the guts to  at  least  start  some kind of ball rolling - today's admins will  be tomorrow's arbs and 'crats. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support in principle, but oppose without fuller solution I am 100% in favour of RFA clerks - but unless you have the proper structure in place to fully implement them correctly, I cannot support (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) RFA is broken and a clerking system could be part of the solution. But I don't like this clerking proposal partly for some though not all of the reasons above; For example only allowing approved clerks to snow close RFAs would replace one of the functioning parts of RFA with something more bureaucratic. But a broader point is that clerking to keep the process on track presupposes that we have defined the track. I'd like to see clerks removing the sort of !votes that crats will or should ignore, I'd also like to get RFA to the point where if you want to criticise a fellow editor you have to supply diffs, and if you want to change a policy you file an RFC to seek consensus to change that policy not criticise RFA candidates who follow a policy that you disagree with. More broadly the community needs to try and agree a criteria for what makes a good admin so that RFAs can be more focussed on whether or not the candidate in question should become an admin and less on whether admins in general should have a minimum of x edits y tenure or z featured content. Agree the criteria against which the clerks can clerk against and the clerks are clerking not becoming the overpowerful creatures of this proposal.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This might be useful if RFAs were much longer and more drawn-out (e.g. like arbitration) or needed attention that couldn't quickly be provided by bureaucrats (e.g. like SPI, where we sometimes need to block rapidly to prevent additional disruption), but neither of those are the case. Bureaucrats can follow the current discussions, and nothing here requiring bureaucrat tools is so urgent that it can't wait until one of them comes around.  Combine that with others' concerns about the potential problems with this system, and I'm overall swayed against it.  Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Hammersoft. No need for more people waving shiny badges. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose seems unnecessary. To the extent it's necessary, that's why we have bureaucrats - and I don't think anyone can argue that the workload of RfAs has been so high they just can't handle it anymore. Nathan  T 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Last rites. Nikkimaria has my power of attorney, and can speak for me. ;D We have bureaucrats. Non-bureaucratic civility-patrolling is often (and perhaps usually) a waste of time and inflames problems. The community has been sharply divided on what is objectionable and what is informative at RfA, so there is no community consensus to guide interventions at RfA. Perhaps the bureaucrats really do have experience and good judgement, and have already acted according to the limitations of good sense...?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I just don't see any benefit in it. We have crats to monitor RfAs; why have yet something else people will compete for?  Rcsprinter  (talk to me)  @ 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And where have they been doing  that? Can you  provide a significant  number of diffs to show where/when/how they  have intervened to  keep  RfAs on  an even keel? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * One minor quibble. I think "However, non-clerks must not perform any of the clerk-only tasks." should read "However, except in extraordinary circumstances, non-clerks must not perform any of the clerk-only tasks." One circumstance that comes to mind would be to remove obvious NPA violations. I understand that in extreme cases IAR (and the broader civility policies) can be applied, but I still think an exception should be included in the policy. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 00:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I amended the proposal.  ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#444444;">| converse _  01:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the status of the RfA after transclusion, prior to the self-assignment of a clerk? What if no clerk volunteers? -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why "A user may not clerk an RfA if the candidate or nominator(s) objects to that user being a clerk (for any reason)."? David  1217  What I've done 01:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What if they object to every clerk, what then?— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is this provission in the proposal: "If desired, a candidate may request to have no clerks at their RfA." -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps each candidate could be allowed three objections. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 02:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like a number of objections, because after that you end up with a random ogre that you really don't want. Rather, I would suggest that an RFA that is still unclerked after a week closes as procedurally failed with no prejudice against the candidate being renominated. That way, it's not in the best interests of the candidate to keep objecting to clerks, and there's no long term effect on the chances of a candidate who, otherwise, could just have a problem with a certain set of users. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 02:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can see why it is necessary for an RfA to be clerked in order for the results to be official. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 02:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, perhaps a solution to the problem of a candidate not liking clerks is that s/he can opt-out of clerking? <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 02:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as has since been mentioned above. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 02:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, serves me right for only responding to diffs. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 02:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt that it matters now. In this environment, we can't get consensus on anything and the status quo will never change. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one that would welcome the top-down reform that Jimbo has hinted at as a means of overcoming this inertia? Once that's broken, maybe we'll be more capable of agreeing upon alterations should the mandated changes cause new problems  Jebus989 ✰ 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'm hoping Jimbo's proposals will come out soon. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 16:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that only the candidate, rather than nominators, should be able to opt-out of clerking at the RfA. It's ultimately their RfA, so it should be their call. I think the opt-out portion is a good idea in general, though, as that way anyone who objects to the idea isn't bound to follow it anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will this run 30 days? I'm not sure if we've got 30 days, and there will be more RfCs after this one. How about 14 days? - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is a thing we could ask the Arbcom clerks to assume, and whether or not it would reduce concerns of creating a cabal if these established cadre handled the responsibility? -- My 76 Strat  (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is outside of our mandate -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  18:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To get "meta" for a moment, I think most Wikipedians find results like the results we've got so far to be confusing and frustrating. I see some clear "signal" here that something's wrong here, that we need to start from some other angle. But there's also the usual "noise" here, of the usual kinds: 1. Some voters vote against anything and everyone, always. Anyone who's been doing this for a while knows who they are. have voted against every RfC on RfA 2. Some voters don't actually care what happens ... I don't know which ones, and if I did, I wouldn't point them out ... it's just a clear pattern that, In RfCs on RfAs, relatively little consensus-building goes on, as if people don't really care what the actual outcome is, they're just here to argue. Not sure what's up with that. It may be that people are just frustrated and have given up hope that there's any path that will give them what they want. aren't invested in the outcome. 3. Most voters do actually care ... but some don't disclose what they actually care about, and everyone will be biased against solutions that don't address whatever they think the real problem is, so all the RfCs that have tackled just one issue wind up with 75% opposition right out of the gate ... because, for most voters, they're not addressing the "real" problem (or any of a hundred possible subproblems, some of which are mentioned above). I don't have the solution, but I suggest we start looking for one, before Jimbo steps in. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't mean that opposing views are "noise", I mean that voters are sometimes obscuring the "signal", that is, the actually useful information that would tell us what they're looking for that would allow us to find a consensus that works for them. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) This isn't a fair comment. I don't see anyone making type 1 noise (although I suppose there's a non-zero chance you're talking about me, and I have a blind spot).  I don't recognize any type 2 noise; looking at the thoughtful, on-point explanations in the opposes above, I count zero people who don't care. And since there are no bare votes above, there's no one who won't disclose what they care about. Indeed, I see zero noise in the opposes above.  If people are simply opposed to the entire concept of clerks, then not suggesting ways to tweak this scheme so it is acceptable to them is not obstruction.  It's honesty. And it isn't fair to characterize opposition to clerks as "noise".


 * You want concrete suggestions? Off the top of my head:


 * If you want it less dysfunctional:
 * No group think: no banning of keepscases or kmweber because they're outliers. No telling them how wrong they are, no telling them how ridiculous their opinions are. It's not disruptive to have a non-mainstream opinion.
 * No lists of rationales that are discounted. If a rationale is silly, hardly anyone will have it, and it won't matter.  If a large number of people have the same rationale, it shouldn't be discounted by definition.
 * No mandarins: the people who are going to be attracted to policing RFA are the people who should not be encouraged to do so.
 * No personal attacks on candidates... BUT no false claims of personal attacks when all that's been done is criticize them. Criticism is not a personal attack.
 * No personal attacks on people opposing a candidate. And especially no passive-aggressive attacks on an opposer that are meant to get them to lash out, so you can try to silence them.
 * Address problems 4 and 5 in the most laid back manner possible, preferably by adults, preferably by people with more mediation in their soul than desire for control, preferably by people capable of distinguishing a personal attack from a criticism. Don't over-react. If a candidate responds to the substance of an aggressive oppose, and ignores the aggression, that's a plus. If the nominators or candidate denigrate the oppose, that's a minus.  Other people aren't idiots; if they seem needless aggression that isn't reciprocated, they will give that opinion less weight.  It doesn't have to be argued aggressively back.
 * Basically, accept that almost any candidate will have some people who will oppose them, often for reasons that others find unreasonable, and this is not a horrible thing that must be addressed.
 * If you want more people to pass, then:
 * Make it easier to remove an admin that no longer has the community's trust (i.e. if they wouldn't pass an RFA, they shouldn't be an admin). This will move adminship back towards the proverbial "no big deal" it used to be.
 * Break up the admin toolkit. For example, there are lots of people I would trust to do most anything, except block other editors. I would never support them for adminship, because if they start blocking without good judgement, they would be difficult to remove.
 * If you want more brilliant, insightful ideas:
 * Ask me, I'm full of them.
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will ask, on your talk page. If we can get some kind of meeting of the minds, I'll report back here. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To summarize: I'm not going to point a finger at any one person and say, "You didn't tell us what we need to know to put together an RfC that you'd support". Most voters are providing at least some of that information, and I have no way of knowing. What I can say is, statistically, it's extremely unlikely that everyone is giving us the full scoop on what they want, because if they were, we'd be able to put together an RfC that works, and we've never even come close ... all we get is people telling is that, once again, we've failed. And some of them seem to be under the impression that that's the fault of the people putting together the RfCs. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like several here think the crats should be doing this. Ok fine, then maybe we redo the RFC to say just that, that the crat's will ride herd over each RFA and deal with troublemakers and contention as set forth in this RFA. If they are willing to do that, I think that is a great idea and perfectly acceptable. My guess is they won't want to do that (at least unless we promote some more beauracrats) but its worth asking. If they say yes great and we can move forward. If they say no, then allowing administrators to do it should also be fine. Responding to a comment above from Floquenbeam, "the people who are going to be attracted to policing RFA are the people who should not be encouraged to do so." I agree this may happen however if this is the case, they should not be admins anyway and should not have the tools. A big reason for my RFA failure was that folks thought I didn't have the right temperment. If that is true and those arguments are valid then either the admins who have the tools have the temperment needed or they need to have the tools removed. Period.

I also agree with the 2 suggestions from Floquenbeam under "If you want more people to pass, then:" I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately these also have been suggested and won't pass consensus

I encourage folks to keep trying and I compliment and applaud Dank and others for their initiative in once again trying to come to a consensus on how to make RFA better. After all these RFC's and the flurry of discussions in the last month however it is even clearer, at least to me, that the only way that anything will be done to fix RFA is if Jimbo or the foundation direct it. It may not work, but we need to try something. If that doesn't work we'll try something else and keep tweaking the process until it does work. We are becoming too much like the American Congress. We are too afraid to try something to fix these problems and we just keep kicking the can down the road. Too much politics, too much bickering and too little action. Nothing is going to get consensus. Jimbo Help! Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks K. Does anyone have an idea for an RfC on any subject that could pass here or at WT:RFA? - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically: does anything think it's possible to get an RfC to pass that either puts limits on what changes we can accept from Jimbo before he acts, or develops a questionnaire to ask people who look like reasonable candidates, but who have not run and don't want to run, why they aren't running? There has to be a reason or reasons that we had only 28 promotions last year. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be vehemently against an RfC on the former. For the record I think Jimbo needs to act, but I think my logic holds regardless of the view you take. Even if Jimbo takes unilateral action and is deemed to have significantly improved the tools system, there will be some damage to Wikipedia (some pain from the unilateral action, more gain through his actions). Should he deemed to have made things worse, the net damage will be considerable (some pain, more pain, and a serious blow to Jimbo's standing on the project). An RfC limiting what he can do would lower his chance of success, while not in any way reducing the damage that unilateral action would cause. —WFC— FL wishlist 21:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dank's diatribe about "signal" and "noise" is utter rubbish. Every opposer (of the 20 so far) has given valid reasoning. (Oppose number 17 by Hammersoft is perhaps flippant, but the meaning is clear and the reason is valid.) Just because Dank doesn't agree with those reasons doesn't make them "noise".

"" Some voters vote against anything and everyone, always. ""

- Dank

What hyperbole. The only person who I am aware of who might fit into that category is kmweber.

"" Some voters don't actually care what happens... they're just here to argue. ""

- Dank

An ad hominem attack against a vague group without any evidence to support it. Axl ¤  [Talk]  14:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily know what I'm doing, and I'm happy to strike if I've gone about things the wrong way ... I often do, in RfA discussions. I totally understand that sometimes, when people say things like I said, what they're really doing is trying to point a finger or malign the opposition or suppress the discussion. If you read anything else I've written, I hope it will be clear that none of those were my goals, and I really don't enjoy giving offense; I'm trying to get a discussion going on why we can't get any RfC to pass, ever ... that's different than on any other page in Wikipedia (that I can think of), so there certainly has to be something exceptional going on here. I imagine it's uncomfortable for most of us to spend much time thinking about this; no one enjoys thinking about failure. The main thing is: I'm not trying to make the discussion about me, or about anyone else. If I can get an answer to what I posted just above this post ... can we get an RfC? ... that would be great. If not, I'm done till there's an RfC I can vote on, or until Jimbo steps in. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To offer positives on clerking: two areas I'd be keen to see (elected) clerks working would be:
 * identifying potential candidates and persuading them to run (in addition to existing nominators, tho' I'd see experienced, trusted nominators as ideal clerks);
 * evaluating candidates -- essentially a neutral nominator who looks into the candidate's background in detail and brings up potential negatives as well as positives. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are neither within the proposed remit for clerks nor subjects  for discussion  in  this RfC. Please feel  free to  start  anew discussion elsewhere on such  issues.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Better to present a cogent justification against the adoption of alternative proposals, than to restrict discussion arbitrarily, dismiss suggestions, and instruct the exponent to 'go elsewhere'. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 14:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC).
 * The very reason why consensus is difficult to reach on Wikipedia is because RfCs always get  side tracked and bogged down with off topic comments and suggestions. If people would stick to the straw poll and simply expand their reasons for supporting  or opposing  here, it would make life a lot easier. To  distract  from  the topic under poll is to  demonstrate a lack of respect  and good faith  for the proposer's suggestions. There are plenty of available fora for discussing  alternative suggestions for improving RfA; WT:RFA is one of them, and WP:RFA2011 is another. No  one is restricting  anyone's rights to collaborate, there are simply the right places for the right topics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another heads-up, and I do apologize for the distraction, Kudpung, but people are going to want to see this: WT:RFA. The goal isn't to undermine this RfC, just the opposite: this one doesn't seem to be passing, and I want to find a way to keep the comments and the momentum alive from the recent work here and at WT:RfA, and squeeze some kind of lemonade out of this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was support for starting that RfC, so here it is, but I have tried to acknowledge the downside of starting that RfC in a note there to the closers: "I started this RfC while WT:Requests for adminship/Clerks was still running because there was support to start this RfC, but I do apologize for the obvious downsides to starting a second RfC when the same topics are already being covered in another RfC. Please consider comments in that RfC when closing this one, to the extent they address the same questions." - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)