Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors

2024 Requests for adminship review

Status as of 12:25 (UTC), Wednesday, 4 December 2024 (update time)

Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have named admins/crats to monitor infractions. --19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! This is the discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of RFA2024 (Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions). The discussion close by Sirdog is reprinted here:

I find that there is a rough consensus among editors that it would be helpful for a named panel of administrators and/or bureaucrats be listed on individual RfAs of whom would be called on to assist in addressing uncivil, problematic, and/or disruptive behavior.
There does not appear to be much agreement on any particular way to enact this at present. Many supports present particular methods of enacting this proposal (some have their support contingent on a particular method), but most are structurally different from one another and none are rallied behind. As a result, this proposal's ultimate success will largely be contingent on what kinds of consensus can be achieved for implementation during Phase II.
The prevailing support arguments are a) that any attempt to address civility issues at RfA is welcome and, if nothing else, this proposal is worth giving a shot, and b) that naming particular editors would help combat a perceived bystander effect at RfA and thus increase the chances of intervention.
The prevailing oppose argument is functionally unanimous, being that the proposal is unnecessary and that administrators and bureaucrats are already empowered by civility policies to clerk RfAs. However, the opposers are in a clear numerical minority, and it is clear from the arguments presented by supporters that they are unconvinced that uncivil, problematic, and/or disruptive behavior is being adequately addressed.
Based on my reading of this discussion, editors appear to want the following items ironed out. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but an aid.

Should named panelists be the only editors able to address behavioral issues at a particular RfA?

Should named panelists be compelled to a) not participate in the RfA, b) not be a nominator for the pertinent RfA, and c) not possess strong ties to the candidate, or any combination of the 3?

Should named panelists, presuming they are not a bureaucrat, be capable of striking an individual's RfA vote as part of civility enforcement?

Should named panelists be determined prior to or after an RfA begins?

This RfC uses the old-fashioned editor-statement style of discussion (for an example, see WP:ACERFC2019). There is no built-in way to oppose a statement: instead, create your own (contradictory) statement. For instance, if someone had the statement Nobody should get a free pony, you might create the statement Jimbo will buy everyone a pony. You can make and support as many proposals as you wish.

Maintaining a separate list of people open to clerking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to adopt statement #2, without prejudice to an editor contacting an administrator or bureaucrat before beginning their RfA to secure a monitor. There was discussion outside the scope of the proposals about whether an editor should be allowed to select their own monitor and whether the community should have a say over selecting monitors. Those issues can be resolved elsewhere. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 16:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by SchroCat and HouseBlaster (separate list)

A separate list should be kept of those administrators and bureaucrats willing to assist with the process ("Monitors"). They can be pinged when an RFA is imminent to ask if they are available to monitor for that specific RFA. However, any administrator or bureaucrat is able to sign up to individual RFAs to monitor for behavioural infractions, whether they are on the list or not.

Editors who endorse statement #1 (separate list)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(And leeky's addition below) Toadspike (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm endorsing this more general statement, because I think having such a list is useful. I'm not endorsing #2 or #3, because I think we should allow some leeway, since any admin can always take actions during the first day or so of an RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good solution; a candidate (or their nominator if the candidate prefers not to appear to be announcing) can ping before transcluding if they want to ensure there is a team in place from the start. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by theleekycauldron (separate list)

Unless this comes with the implicit requirement that all RfAs need to announce their arrival ahead of time, figuring out which RfAs are forthcoming is impossible. Instead, monitors should be selected within 24 hours of the start of the RfA. If a candidate wishes to publicly announce their RfA ahead of time or privately contact the bureaucrat team (who can in turn ask admins if anyone is free at X time to monitor an anonymous RfA) in order to secure monitors from the jump, they are free to avail themselves of either option.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (separate list)

:) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may help address the existing issue that all volunteers believe someone else is responsible for enforcing violations of policies and guidelines at RfA. — Bilorv (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
jp×g 🗯️ 21:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss statement #2 (separate list)

? first there is no way to privately contact the crat team, you could privately contact a crat. We abolished our private mailing list a while ago. If there is a standing list of those that would want to volunteer to monitor, perhaps a candidate could just contact someone of their choosing on that list to advertise this call? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just have the nominator post to WT:RfA before transcluding and ping the list of admins who've signed up? Those who are willing/available can just indicate so, and the nominator/candidate can select two or three they trust and that the candidate does not consider involved with them? It doesn't seem like there's any need to get a 'crat involved, that just adds a layer of back and forth. Valereee (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I prefer that the candidate and nominators not be involved in selecting designated monitors. I think it helps avoid claims of partiality in the choice. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe being able to choose monitors a candidate 1. trusts and 2. believes will actually be willing to intervene is a feature, not a bug. If others see the monitor behaving in a way they believe is partial toward the candidate, they can speak up. This entire exercise is about making candidates feel their RfA will be less toxic. A monitor who has a history of not being willing to intervene is worse than no monitor at all, as it can create a bystander effect. Ditto a monitor the candidate/nominator don't trust. A candidate shouldn't be required to object to a particular monitor. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming, then, the key issue is not partiality, but of differing moderation standards: that's pretty hard to reconcile. I'm toying with a small tweak of your proposal: having an overall roster of admins willing to be a monitor, with the community able to object to any who they feel are too lenient or too strict, and the candidate selecting from the roster. This would give the candidate a wider choice. But... I don't think it really helps if the candidate feels that the community's moderation standard is too lenient. I think the process would have to run a few times so we can get a sense of how the monitoring process works out in practice. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the process would have to run a few times so we can get a sense of how the monitoring process works out in practice. Totally agree.

I don't think the candidate selecting from the roster really works, though, as the first step needs to be those on the roster volunteering for a particular time period. Admins could add themselves to the roster but not be willing to very closely watch a nomination during a particular week; I could see a roster of several dozen that yields only a handful of volunteers for any given time slot. Having candidates approach and be declined by multiple monitors doesn't improves the situation for candidates, and having to choose between declining a request and accepting one you don't really have time for would be hard for admins, too.

Not sure what you mean by I don't think it really helps if the candidate feels that the community's moderation standard is too lenient. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, isn't that pretty much exactly what we have now? The moderation standards are too lenient if no one is willing to step in and say, "Asking about a person's religion is inappropriate." Valereee (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate can make a broad selection of many potential monitors, and those who are available can sign up. Otherwise it feels like they aren't really being given much choice. I agree, though, that this may face practical issues if the monitors have very intermittent availability. (Of course in that case, there can't be any choice anyway.)

Yes, there may be a current issue. If there is, having the candidate select from a roster (whether that is a broad one or subset of self-identifying potential monitors) won't really address it. If the candidate's standard is significantly different than the community's, then whoever is selected from the roster will not be alignment with one of the two. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they'd have more intermittent availability than typical. Sometimes I am willing and able to pay very close attention to a discussion. Sometimes not. I'm sure that's true for the vast majority of editors. It's why we let RfA candidates pick their time.

I'm not actually understanding what your concerns about the 'candidate's standards' are. If candidates are concerned about RfAs being a bloodbath, and the community wants to address that concern, what is it you think is going to happen if the candidate chooses monitors who make them feel comfortable running? Are you worried that there'll be monitors who close down reasonable questions? I think there'd be objections to that. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is rather than have a couple of people step forward, the rest of the roster say oh, that's enough, and the candidate has a very narrow pick of potential monitors, is to let the candidate pick a relatively larger group from a broad list, and then the selected choices can decide if they can fit the task into their schedule. By intermittent availability, I meant if there are only two people available (for whatever reason) at any given time, regardless of the size of the roster, then naturally it won't make much difference.

By saying "the community wants to address that concern", you're assuming that the community has the same standards as the candidate. I'm suggesting that some candidates might feel certain types of questions should be removed if asked, and the community might not. The current ongoing discussion at the Requests for adminship talk page is one example of a divergence in opinion regarding some categories of questions. Until that's addressed, I think having the candidate select monitors won't result in candidate being reassured about how moderation will proceed. isaacl (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by Cremastra (separate list)

A list/register/whatever you want call it of admins and 'crats willing to monitor RfAs should be made. Knowing when an RfA is imminent is unlikely, unless there's a lot of conspicuous planning beforehand; however, selecting monitors within 24 hours of the start of the RfA may defeat the purpose: pile-ons and incivility are likely under way on the first day. Therefore, RfA nominations should be publicized 'before discussion/voting starts, and the RfA should not start until at least one monitor has been designated. In this way there is a designated monitor from the very start of the RfA.

Editors who endorse statement #3 (separate list)

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

Allowing non-designated admins to intervene

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to adopt statement #2. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by SchroCat (non-designated admins)

Abhorrent behavioural problems can still be addressed by any administrator whether they are a listed monitor or not.

Editors who endorse statement #1 (non-designated admins)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by theleekycauldron (non-designated admins)

To slightly bulletproof statement #1: No part of this proposal relieves any administrator or bureaucrat of their ability to enforce civility policies at RfA. It is not within the scope of this subpage to limit the reach of the 99%+ of admins who are not serving as monitors at any one time, only to define what we expect of admins who sign up to be monitors.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (non-designated admins)

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this statement slightly more than #1: it is more precise. In particular, if there is a different reason a specific admin should not be acting as an admin (e.g. WP:INVOLVEment), that admin should not act. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HouseBlaster that this concept needs to be coordinated with how we handle things like being INVOLVED. I specifically endorse the idea that nothing we do here changes the fact that other uninvolved admins remain free, as they have always been, to take appropriate actions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removes potential drama, wish this didn't need to be said but better safe than sorry. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors, whether admins or not, need to know they can act -- and actually should act -- even when in theory a situation is formally someone else's responsibility. We don't need a bystander effect. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfA does not have parliamentary privilege: the norms of Wikipedia still apply. — Bilorv (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Charles Stewart (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I do not like the idea of a list. It sounds too much like petty bureaucracy (I do not accuse anyone; I know the OPs are acting with good intentions). We should empower and encourage uninvolved admins to enforce civility policy. Arguably we are currently so empowered, but distinctly discouraged. That's what needs to change. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suffrage for named monitors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to adopt statement #2. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 16:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by SchroCat (monitor suffrage)

Named Monitors should be allowed to !vote in the RFA

Editors who endorse statement #1 (monitor suffrage)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by HouseBlaster (monitor suffrage)

Named Monitors should not be allowed to !vote in the RFA

Editors who endorse statement #2 (monitor suffrage)

I think voting in the RfA makes you INVOLVEd, even if it is a more mild form of INVOLVEment. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pilaz (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like monitors can't have their own opinions on the candidate, but I believe it is good for monitors to not disclose that (by voting) to prevent unfounded accusations of bias. In reality bias would still exist, but allowing them to vote seems like condoning some bias to be shown. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avoids the appearance of a thumb on the scale when responding to anything that could help/harm candidacy. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it would not directly cause involvement and clouded judgement, it would give off the appearance of bias, which is something we want to avoid. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removes any appearance of impropriety. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monitoring and nominators

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to adopt statement #1. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by SchroCat (nominators)

Named Monitors should not be nominators for the candidate in question

Editors who endorse statement #1 (nominators)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 10:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They would certainly be INVOLVED. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
〜 Askarion ✉ 02:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't see any reason why a nominator or candidate couldn't approach someone asking them to be a moderator at an RfA. Valereee (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removes any appearance of impropriety. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Necessary in order to avoid conflicts of interest. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ties with candidates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to adopt statement #3. The proposal to broaden the scope of that statement did not gain consensus. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 17:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by SchroCat (ties)

Named Monitors should not possess strong ties to the candidate in question

Editors who endorse statement #1 (ties)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although 'Involved' is clearer it is also weaker. Moderator's could have other relations other with the candidate outside the structures of WP:INVOLVED. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by 0xDeadbeef (ties)

Named Monitors should not be closely involved with regards to the candidate in question.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (ties)

I believe this is clearer than strong ties. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Deadbeef – we have precedent for what "involved" means, but "strong ties" is very subjective. Toadspike (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree this is more clear.~~ House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC) EDIT: now supporting ToBeFree's alt 18:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be better if it said "not be involved." rather than "not be closely involved," and not just "with regards to the candidate in question," but involved in any way (hence, "not be involved.", period). The standard should be the same as WP:INVOLVED. RFA monitoring is an admin/crat tool use, and the admin/crat tool use here should be subject to the same WP:INVOLVED rules as admin/crat tool use anywhere else. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the first change ("not be involved") clearly strengthens the statement, the second one may inadvertently weaken it. The main concern (to me) is about monitor-candidate involvement. Highlighting and prohibiting this explicitly does seem to be beneficial. The probably main other type of possible involvement – voter-monitor involvement – isn't clear at the time when monitors are named, and almost inevitable when 200 votes are cast. You may not become a named monitor if you are involved with the candidate, and you should not clerk comments of users you're involved with, but the latter is an entirely different issue unrelated to the monitor naming process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another type of involvement is topical involvement, but nevertheless I'm indenting and partly striking my vote here because I prefer Statement #3. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by ToBeFree (ties)

Named Monitors should not be involved with regards to the candidate in question.

Editors who endorse statement #3 (ties)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more clear :) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 18:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, though I would still prefer it just say "not be WP:INVOLVED" without narrowing the scope of WP:INVOLVED per my comment above. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should apply to "involvement" with all actions taken in the RfA, not just the candidate; for example, a monitor should not strike a !vote if they are WP:INVOLVED with respect to that !voter. I agree with Levivich that this should be understood in the sense of WP:INVOLVED, and not just the common meaning of the word. Basically, WP:INVOLVED applies here, the same as it applies elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, even better. Toadspike (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
〜 Askarion ✉ 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Charles Stewart (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Striking votes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to adopt ~~statement~~statements #3 and #5. As has been pointed out to me on my talk page, statements #3 and #5 are not, in fact, intended to be mutually exclusive with one another. Thus, there is consensus to adopt both statements.~~Several editors who initially supported statement #3 changed their !votes to the former, and the two statements are incompatible with one another.~~ (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by SchroCat and HouseBlaster (striking votes)

Monitors should not have the power to strike a !vote from the tally except in "voter fraud" scenarios (e.g. double votes, WP:SOCKSTRIKE, etc.)

Editors who endorse statement #1 (striking votes)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by SchroCat and HouseBlaster (striking votes)

Monitors should have the power to strike, collapse, redact, {{RPA}}, move to talk, or otherwise remove comments—including a !vote's rationale, but not the !vote itself—if it violates a policy/guideline.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (striking votes)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think leeky's proposal below goes a bit too far. "I really don't like the candidate" should, I think, be a valid oppose rationale, but it might fall under 'bigotry'. Toadspike (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vote should still be counted, but personal attacks need to be removed. I oppose Statement 4 since removing obvious personal attacks is the entire point of the monitors. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While I prefer this option, I am fine with Option 3 as a compromise so that we can achieve some form of consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for proposing this. It addresses a main concern I had. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC) And per subsequent discussion, with the clarification that discounting the !vote itself is a power reserved for Crats. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Toadspike. 〜 Askarion ✉ 12:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by theleekycauldron (striking votes)

There should be a genuine disincentive to leave nasty comments as it relates to the final tally. If a !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or if the comment itself is a blockable offense – the monitors can, at their discretion, remove the vote. Votes that are, say, entirely bigotry should not count. (The bureaucrats retain removal power by default.)

Editors who endorse statement #3 (striking votes)

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good compromise. Cremastra (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not that hard to oppose someone without being nasty. I don't think the candidate is ready to be an admin is not the strongest argument in the world, but it is an argument that would not be struck. It is not that hard. If your comment is enough to get you blocked, that should not count. (Struck; I agree with Joe and ToBeFree. Thank you, both.)
And to be clear what I mean by bigotry: opposing a candidate based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC) edited 01:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual response to your example argument would be "Why?" or similar questions, in response to which the opposer can either choose being lectured about "consensus" and multiple other voters expressing their hope for the unexplained oppose to be "discounted" by bureaucrats, or providing a made-up civil explanation for their personal dislike, none of which is helpful to anyone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As ToBeFree says, people expect specific reasons and evidence for opposing (not for supporting, but that's another story). So the difficulty is saying here is a specific incident where the candidate did something wrong, and so wrong that I don't trust you with the admin tools, in a way that isn't hurtful. Or incidents, plural, really, because if it's just one you'll get badgered for having a grudge or not letting people make mistakes. I don't think it's impossible to deliver that message without being nasty, but it is a skill, and for me at least quite a difficult one.

And then even if someone does take the time to carefully write their oppose in the kindest way they can, they're almost certain to be challenged on it. Usually quite directly – because somehow civility is less important when you're Defending the Candidate and the Integrity of the Process. Opposers that feel harassed don't compose their response so carefully, and so the tone deteriorates with each reply. The most contentious exchanges at RfA happen in threaded discussions, not the initial votes. – Joe (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An oppose with a nasty comment is worse than an oppose without any justification. If someone decides to vote with a comment loaded with bigotry, then I'm going to have to believe that they aren't even participating in the RfA in good faith. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to support this, although I believe 'crats are capable of deciding whether a !vote should be counted. Valereee (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being civil while telling someone you don't trust them is difficult, but it's also sort of the whole point of RfA reform. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simple case of WP:CIR. If an opposer does not have the temperament to keep their oppose civil, then they should not be participating at RFA. --N Y Kevin 20:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re opposers being harassed: This is irrelevant. The proposal only addresses incivility in the !vote itself, and harassment is already a violation of policy. I would also be willing to support a rule allowing/encouraging monitors and/or 'crats to remove incivil replies, regardless of who made them, and without invalidating the !vote if it was originally given in good faith, but that is out of scope for this proposal (especially since "originally given in good faith" is difficult to adequately define - if you make an overtly bigoted statement anywhere on the page, then IMHO you ought to lose any benefit of the doubt you might otherwise have had, but that would need to be separately proposed and discussed). --N Y Kevin 03:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the statements, this is the one I feel most in agreement with. Much like on Arbitration pages, there should be minimal tolerance of contributions that fail to meet basic levels of decorum. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #4 by hako9 (striking votes)

Monitors should not have the power to strike, collapse, redact, {{RPA}}, or otherwise remove comments—including a !vote's rationale. They may move to talk any subsequent comments if they violate a policy/guideline.

Editors who endorse statement #4 (striking votes)

As nominator. — hako9 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #5 by 0xDeadbeef (striking votes)

Monitors should have the power to strike, collapse, redact, {{RPA}}, move to talk, or otherwise remove comments—including a !vote's rationale—if it violates a policy/guideline. Whether or not the !vote itself can be struck is not specified in this statement.

Editors who endorse statement #5 (striking votes)

Because I would have endorsed #2 if it wasn't incompatible with #3. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I also do support being able to strike the vote itself too. Valereee (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
House Blaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per 0xDeadbeef. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Crat chats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to adopt statement #2. Those supporting statement #1 did not oppose disallowing a monitoring 'crat from closing an RfA, and several editors !voted for both statements. There appears to be no objection to to allowing a monitoring 'crat to recuse should they so choose. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by SchroCat ('crat chats)

If a Monitor is also a Crat, they should be allowed to join in any subsequent Crat chat

Editors who endorse statement #1 ('crat chats)

As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they retain the right to recuse themselves. Toadspike (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can recuse if they really think they need to, but I don't see why it would be required of them. We have too few crats to require this. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem okay/compatible to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crat chat, yes, but they should not close the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Functionally these are two different roles and I don't see how work in one affects work in the other. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The factors that make someone a good monitor (not involved with the candidate etc.) would also make them well-placed to judge consensus, including the additional factor that they have read, re-read and watched the RfA very closely already. — Bilorv (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support and endorse this point. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by Tryptofish ('crat chats)

Crats who Monitor an RfA should not also close (determine consensus in) that RfA, although they may still participate as one member of a Crat Chat.

Editors who endorse statement #2 ('crat chats)

This is making explicit what I said in my support of Statement #1. I think there would be too much of a conflict if a single person were to close the RfA that they also helped monitor, although I don't see a problem with them being one of multiple participants in the Crat Chat. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a COI here. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have enough 'crats that the rule of necessity should not kick in. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also fine for me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadette^Edit! 08:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Hilst [talk] 23:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toadspike (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monitor Endorsement of Civility Norms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to adopt this statement as a result of low participation. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by Toadspike (Monitor Endorsement of Civility Norms)

Monitors are required to endorse the civility reminder produced from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA. If a list of possible Monitors is created (see "Maintaining a separate list" above), endorsing the reminder of civility norms is a prerequisite to entry on that list. Toadspike (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse statement #1 (parenthetical description of problem)

As nominator. Adapted from Asilvering's comment below. - Toadspike (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Availability expectations for monitors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a weak consensus to adopt this proposal, with the recognition that enforcement would be difficult and that editors should assume that monitors are working in good faith. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by NYKevin (monitors should look at the RFA every day)

Anyone who agrees to monitor a given RFA is expected to spend a reasonable amount of time scrutinizing that RFA for policy violations every day while it remains open. The exact amount of time per day, how that time is distributed throughout the day, and whether the monitor directly looks at the RFA or at another tool (such as page history, a watchlist, etc.), is at the discretion of the monitor, but monitors are expected to provide an adequate level of scrutiny relative to the size and complexity of the discussion. Scrutiny does not necessarily imply visible on-wiki activity, if there are no violations which require action. Admins who are not prepared to make such a commitment should not agree to participate as monitors.

Editors who endorse statement #1 (monitors should look at the RFA every day)

As nominator. I'm concerned that the proposal as it stands does not appear to describe the level of scrutiny that monitors are expected to perform. Proposing this in order to make clear that you can't just sign up to be a monitor, and then ghost the RFA for (e.g.) a few days. --N Y Kevin 02:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amended to clarify that you can still satisfy this requirement by e.g. watchlisting the page and checking your watchlist every day. The point is, you can't just vanish. --N Y Kevin 02:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much detail we need to spell out about this, but I agree in principle. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principle per Tryptofish, but we shouldn't be aggressively enforcing this. Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that "enforcement" would be a mess. Outside of truly exceptional cases (e.g. an RfA spirals way out of control and no monitor takes any action at all, not even asking other admins for help), this should run under the honor system. The idea is to discourage people from signing up if they're not prepared to actually spend a significant amount of time on monitoring work, not to sanction people who do a poor job of monitoring. --N Y Kevin 02:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support and endorse this point. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although this would already be covered by one of the statements above (the one that said that monitors were selected for every specific RfA and had to confirm availability). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Open discussion

In general I think this is likely to be a positive step for RfA. I think it would be very helpful if, additionally, we had a statement that all participants (candidates, voters, crats, everyone) had to endorse prior to participation, that reminds us of the reason for the discussion and the expected conduct. That is, we all do need to agree at least in principle with what the monitor's job is for, in order for moderation to work as productively as possible. Anyone who has been in a union or even a well-run corporate board meeting will be familiar with the kind of statement I mean. A sample wording might be "The purpose of this community discussion is to examine whether the candidate has the qualities and experience necessary for admin duties. Editors are expected to remain polite and collegial, especially when discussing the candidate's flaws. Monitorname(s)here will be monitoring the discussion to ensure it remains constructive." (This is just an example. I don't want to get too bogged down about the individual words at this point, since I think they're contingent on the outcomes of the discussions above.)

To clarify, by "everyone has to endorse the statement before participating", I don't mean something like "you must sign some document somewhere", that we'd maintain any kind of list, or anything bureaucratic like that. There are a variety of ways we could approach this. (At a meeting, what you do is simply read the statement out loud at the beginning.) And actually, the edit field I'm using to write this already has a statement I must agree to before posting. It says: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources..

I'm suggesting this because I do actually believe it has helped in in-person meetings I've been a part of, but also because I think it gets at some of the underlying reasoning crats, etc, have used to avoid intervening in discussions. That is, I think it's easy to see intervening in an RfA discussion along the "censorship vs openness" axis, and/or that it's easy to feel that a 'crat is exercising some form of hierarchical power by intervening. Neither of these are useful frameworks for understanding RfA, which is supposed to be a consensus-building exercise. The result we desire - or at least, what I think most of us desire - is a discussion that usefully and fairly evaluates the candidate, that doesn't alienate anyone's opinion, and which doesn't inspire dread in potential admin candidates. -- asilvering (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this would be better discussion as part of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA, as an additional edit notice to the already discussed reminder. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over the section on maintaining a separate list I feel like we really need to discuss timing, and this isn't something I have a concrete proposal for. For example, editors have suggested that monitors should be selected within the first 24 hours. What happens if they can't be selected within the time period? Who is responsible for ensuring that happens? Monitors are volunteers, so it's hard to formulate a rule that works at all times. On the other hand, making monitors a strict requirement before opening an RfA sounds like not having monitors around means we can't open any new RfAs. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While probably very unpopular, if no volunteers emerge, could we start drafting people from the list? Toadspike (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only solution I can see is to ask the candidate whether they want to hold their RFA in an unmonitored environment (refusing will result in a procedural close with hopefully no impact on their future RFA attempts), and a banner or editnotice should be placed warning participants that the RFA is unmonitored and they shall participate at their own risk. Suboptimal, but it won't be worse than our current procedures (I presume any other admins/crats passing by will still have the power to moderate the discussion). Liu1126 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With Proposal 3b - 'Make the first two days discussion-only' passing (at least as a trial) the problem area of oppose votes is delayed by two days, if it stays this should be enough time for a monitor to come forward. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to Monitors having the power to strike, collapse, redact, {{RPA}} remove comments. Moving comments to talk should be sufficient. Have there really been any RFAs where there were unchecked civility issues, so much so, as to impede the rfa process or cause distress to the candidate? Because only that would justify above proposals. What's the remedy for someone who feels their comments and rationale were wrongly removed? — hako9 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As two egregious examples, we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk where more than 50 revisions are suppressed because of something said in an oppose and a comment which sparked this entire ArbCom case. (The oppose rationale which sparked the ArbCom case was at one pointrevdel'd, but was subsequently undeleted because it was widely posted and thus the horse had left the barn.) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who can close an RfA?

I'm not sure if the question of who can close an RfA is covered by this or not. Is the intent that only the designated clerks could perform a close? We really need to avoid a repeat of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit, where it was closed, reopened, blanked, unblanked, and reclosed again. Maybe I've even missed some steps. That's just chaos and makes it hard to take the process seriously. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's covered under this proposal, this is only about having a designated RFA monitor. There is a suggestion that the nominated monitor shouldn't close the RFA, but nothing about the general procedure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the proposal that I made in the Crat Chats section is really about determining the outcome, the consensus, of an RfA that has run to its conclusion. RoySmith's question, however, goes to who can close an RfA that is being ended early. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, not the monitors, if that's what you're asking. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 10:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]