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.

Closed as clearly passing. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Another option is to post a notice announcing current RfAs on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, which will display the notice on all watchlists.

Support A2

1. Support. I think this is a reasonable option. We do this for major proposals, and RfAs are arguably important enough to merit the same treatment. This option isn't as extreme as A1, and is also likely to attract more experienced editors, since they are likely the ones that make the most extensive use of watchlists. Biblio worm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. A standard way to attract editors to important discussions and events. The best option for reliably broadcasting open RfAs. BethNaught ( talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. this is the way to do it. Great option. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Support Subtle but would likely drive more people to on-going RFAs, and in turn, hopefully more candidates. Mkdw ^talk 22:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Support - good option that is likely to be effective. Just Chilling ( talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Support I can see this being useful. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Support. Useful addition - however if the number of RFA's significantly increase, this may need to be re-looked at. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Support trial. The watchlist seems like a reasonable place to do this and it would attract the right kind of people (active editors). It would also attract attention to the RfA process, which could in turn help encourage people to ask for admin permission, thus helping to solve the problem with the declining number of active admins. That said, we should have a bail-out plan if things do not go well. Jason Quinn ( talk) 16:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Support as a good idea. APerson ( talk!) 18:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. I can support this rather weakly, at least as a trial. It might end up being spammy, and it might attract more trollish participants, but it's probably worth a try, in order to increase and broaden participation. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. If we are dead-set on increasing publicity for RfAs, this is probably the cleanest, most effective way of doing it. Mz7 ( talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Not everyone uses their watchlist, but this will attract a significant and helpful group of active editors. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Conditional support per xaosflux's comments below. A generic "there are RFA's open" only. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
14. Support This seems like the right way to attract more !voters with at least some experience. It's true not all users use the watchlist, but I'm rather sure most users who have made multiple contributions do. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 22:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
15. Support. This seems like a "no brainer" to me... (Now, if we start having 10 RfA's at once, we may need to revisit this... But with the current RfA activity we have now, this seems like a good proposal.) Addendum: OK, the suggested generic "There are RfA's currently running..." banner, as per xaosflux & Beeblebrox, seems to solve all issues here. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
16. Support, preferably with names, not just RfA count. -- Pres N 22:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
17. Support - this would certainly prompt me to participate in more RfAs. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
18. Support - sounds like a good idea to me, the only possibility I can see is that the notice becomes regular enough that people ignore it, but let's cross that bridge... Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
19. Support, but with no names. Just a generic "an RFA is in progress" will do. Steel1943 ( talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
20. Support perhaps with no names. At current rates of applications, "a new RFA is in progress", kept up for 2-3 days, would not mean it is up very much. You don't want there all the time or people will ignore it. Johnbod ( talk) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
21. Conditional Support see comment below, only support if this will be minimal, without usernames. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
22. Support looks reasonable to me. Banedon ( talk) 04:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
23. Support – unobtrusive. sst✈ ^(discuss) 05:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
24. Qualified support Do it, without the name of the candidate. If editors see a notice and come over to vote, they should do it because they are interested/concerned about the admin corps, not because they like/dislike a given editor. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
25. Q Support per Vanamonde93. -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 05:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
26. Support per xaosflux's comment below. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
27. Support Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
28. Weak Support. The turnout at RfA has never been so good. However, as trolls rarely operate seriously by using a watchlist, it might attract more of the right quality of voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
29. Support, without the user's name. Per Vanamonde93. Reh man 13:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
30. Support - Sensible place to do it. Rlendog ( talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
31. Support - we need to broaden the pool of both candidates and participants. Something simple ("Two RFAs are pending") would work. Neutrality ^talk 15:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
32. Support. This is done on some other Wikimedia projects and works well. No names, per below. StevenJ81 ( talk) 17:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
33. Support. What about a note for everyone about RfAs every year or so and making RfAs "subscribable" so that new RfAs get displayed in the watchlists of the subscribers? -- Fixuture ( talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
34. Support including usernames and direct links to open RfAs, with individual [dismiss] buttons. — Kusma ( t· c) 20:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
35. Sure, but it does make sense to give it a pause of 12-24h, to weed out possible mistakes etc. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 20:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
36. Support, get the word out without being pushy. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
37. Support, yep. BMK ( talk) 01:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
38. Support. Not too intrusive. JQTriple7 ^talk 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
39. Support However, I believe there should be a 24 hour delay or so per the concerns raised by Leaky Caldron. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
40. Support FWIW, I also agree with the specific suggestions to wait a bit to avoid TOOSOONs and to not include usernames in such notices. -- joe decker ^talk 07:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
41. Support - I'm surprised that this wasn't done a long time ago. RfAs need more participation from a wider group of Wikipedia editors. Guy1890 ( talk) 07:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
42. Support - -- John Cline ( talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
43. Sure. Don't expect it to change much, but the watchlist notice is a fine place for this sort of thing. —  Earwig  ^talk 09:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
44. This sounds a-okay to me. i do find banners mildly perturbing, i would be irked if it popped up all the time. A notice would be unobtrusive and accessible, though what do i know my mother is a fish DirShmielMensh ( talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
45. Support: I reckon two hours would be enough of a delay before it was advertised here; we only need to weed out the occasional NOTNOW. Wait 24 hours and any people who see the RfA will just be primed by the dozens of !votes by the usual people who visit RfA (i.e. new people will just pile onto whatever the consensus is already, changing nothing). — Bilorv _(talk) ^{(c) (e)} 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
46. Support - Editor participation is what makes this place great. Do this, and think of more ways too. SteveStrummer ( talk) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
47. Support and agree with the comments: make the message simple, and wait 12-24 hours before posting. — 2macia22 ( talk) 10:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
48. Support this is a good idea, I think it would increase participation, and make the discussion more communal, as it should be. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
49. Support I suppose it's not too problematic. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
50. Perfect way to get more !voters— UY Scuti ^Talk 07:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
51. Support Hugh ( talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
52. Support - Having watchlist notices wouldn't be that annoying and if it was annoying editors can remove it, A great way to get more participation IMHO. – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
53. Why not.  Sandstein  09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
54. Support Seems nicer. ^{My name is}not^dave ( talk/ contribs) 10:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
55. Qualified Support Catches the editor when receptive to the news of an RfA. But I concur, no usernames, and let's keep it down to a line, not a whole banner. loupgarous ( talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
56. Support Worth a try. The primary thing RfA needs is an influx of nice, reasonable people to provide a counterbalance to the not-so-nice, not-so-reasonable people. It'd be good if we could get the ability to opt-out of particular types of watchlist messages as they have on Commons. — Tom Morris ( talk) 20:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
57. Support No concerns. I assume the admin who adds the watchlist notice will evaluate whether or not the RfA is a clear WP:NOTNOW and if it is truly worthy of seeking broader input — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
58. Conditional Support per Xaosflux. Usernames should not be included in the notice. The number of current RFAs should be included in the message. I also support an opt in/out option, without expressing an opinion on which should be the default.— Godsy^{( TALK} _CONT) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
59. Support - Promoting awareness in words seems good enough, especially in watchlist pages. I don't mind that. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
60. Support - It was a notice like this that brought me here Mizike ( talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
61. Support, minimal and without usernames per Xaosflux, and only if there's been no RfA in the last (say) two weeks. If RfA goes back to a reasonable level activity, we won't need the banner and we certainly won't need to have it all the time. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
62. Support. I would use it. Jonathunder ( talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
63. Support. Reaches everyone who uses their watch list; alleviates a concern of anyone who has considered the RfA process. Prhartcom ( talk) 02:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
64. Support as something that would bring in editors who aren't obsessively watching the candidate or closely watching RFA. Those obsessively watching a candidate tend to be those with a beef, while those with positive experience would notice the watchlist message. For this reason, I would like the candidates name in the watchlist notice. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
65. Support Admins serve the whole community so letting the whole community know makes a lot of sense, Happy Squirrel ( talk) 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
66. Support A brilliant idea, which was working well before this RfC was re-opened -- samtar ^whisper 07:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
67. Support It may bring in a greater diversity of voters. There is no shortage though now. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
68. Support - Good idea. Jus da fax 08:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
69. Support - non-instrusive and seemed fine when it was briefly implemented earlier. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
70. Support. Yes please.  — Scott • talk 10:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
71. Support. Effective and unobtrusive. Double sharp ( talk) 10:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
72. Yes -- Dweller ( talk) 12:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
73. Support Wugapodes ( talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
74. Support, this would be a good way to bring in people who may not regularly watch RfA for new candidates. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
75. Support Useful for those who don't watch WP:RFA for new RfAs or don't realize they can. clpo13_{( talk)} 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
76. Support Would be handy, I keep RFA watchlisted, but even then usually end up missing a few. Brustopher ( talk) 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
77. Yes please. → Call me Hahc 21 03:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
78. Support I presently don't watch WP:RFA, but I am interested in who becomes an admin. I found out about the current RfA through the Watchlist notice, but I would not have known about it otherwise. —  Jkudlick  ^t c _s 03:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
79. Support Certainly better than the previous option.-- Tomandjerry211 (alt) ( talk) 12:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
80. Support a watchlist notice after 24 hours. Regular watchlist users are exactly the sort of productive power users that should be participating in RfA. -- Ahecht ( TALK
    PAGE) 21:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
81. Support -- QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
82. Support – I don't see why not. CT Cooper · talk 13:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
83. Support at least worth a try. Gizza ^{( t)( c)} 01:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
84. Support - Clearly in line with the function of the watch list. (There should be an option to "dismiss" to avoid clutter.) - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
85. Support a logical and sensible move. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose A2

Oppose with out more details, see my note in discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (moved to conditional support) reply

1. Oppose Not clear that the consequences have been thought through. Is this all or just the ones that have passed the obvious "not now" "not ever" stage? Also, inevitable that it will conflict with the idea of reducing overall question volumes and could stir drama from editors joining in for the sake of it. Leaky Caldron 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   A good point – a way to deal with this concern would be to not "advertise" RfA's until 24 or 48 hours into the process: that should eliminate the "advertising" of WP:NOTNOW RfA's. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   Good question. For sure not all the consequences have been thought through but I don't think that's required at this point in time since this is an RfC, not a proposal. While certainly an important detail, I don't think handling quick-closure requests is an insurmountable issue, and definitely not the point of canning the whole idea. I think it's fair to say that they should obviously be filtered out. So the 24 or 48 hour grace period is a good idea. Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   I think you misread the first paragraph of this RfC. These are indeed proposals, if I read it correctly.— ^cyberpower _{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   Thank you for the clarification. Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose If I want to see RfAs on my watchlist, I can just add the RfA page(s) to my watchlist. I don't want it cluttered with notices, that's not what it's for. Waggers TALK 13:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Strong oppose. The problems with RfA are not due to the lack of participants, just the opposite if anything. Spinning Spark 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose – I'm surprised this has drawn so much support. This will probably lead to increased turnout for the first few affected RFAs, but editors will eventually tune out regular watchlist notices. At some point, they may even be turned off by the notices if they prove to be constantly added, which they will be if RFA turnout does improve. Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose per Spinningspark. Perhaps we should do more to encourage editors reading WP:RFA etc to watchlist a page that will alert them to new RFAs, but a notice such as that proposed would be likely to attract editors with little interest in RFA who notice that an editor they've had a disagreement with is at RFA. DexDor ^(talk) 13:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose, though perhaps more of just a comment; i'm sure i'm not alone in completely ignoring anything that comes up on my watchlist other than article changes ~ all i look for it the "hide" button to get rid of irrelevant stuff that takes up my screenspace. Perhaps this is along the lines of Giants2008 oppose, in that it may increase participation for a little while, but eventually, and i would guess sooner than later, regular editors are going to tune the thing out and it loses its purpose, so we'll be here again looking for a way to attract people. cheers, Lindsay ^Hello 11:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. The vast majority of editors that aren't regulars generally don't care about the "backstage" areas of Wikipedia, and may not be particularly interested in an RfA unless it's someone whose username they recognise - and even then they may not care. Hell, I'm probably not wrong in saying that this entire series of RfCs, on reflection, may be poisoning the well for those people. — Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, strongly, unless some of the things that usually get there are removed. Otherwise it will, further, water down the effectiveness of the notifications. Also, oppose anyway because if you have not found out that there are such a thing as a discussion/votes to choose admins (say by reading about what the heck is an admin) or you know and you do not care - say by transcluding the very nice {{ User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} - then you are not here long enough nor care enough to be helpful. - Nabla ( talk) 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. This isn't what the watchlist is for. CENT is far more appropriate. Espresso Addict ( talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose I disagree with driving more traffic to RfA. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose, not useful and a lot of people don't even use the watchlist these days. Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose Pointless watchlist cruft. Pschemp ( talk) 00:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments on A2

• I think that IF we go this way, it should be minimalist, something along the line of There are new RfA's open for commenting , and only have a cookie increment. I don't really want to see USERNAMES on watchlist notices. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree 100% with that. this would strike the right balance, just informing without spamming. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Seconded, as I mention above. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes. I like the suggestion of doing it without naming the candidates. In the old days it wouldn't have been necessary at all, there was practically at least one RfA going on at any one time. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Sam Walton ( talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• To solve the problem of notnow/toosoon cases as pointed out by Leaky caldron, notices can be put up a few hours after the transclusion of an RFA. Any premature RFAs would have been hopefully closed or deleted in the meantime by the active watchers. -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 15:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Agree, even support up to a day - also technical limitation as admins are required to change the watchlist banner. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• There are already way too many watchlist notices. This should not be implemented without a means to unsubscribe from it. There has also not been an adequate response to Waggers comment - new RfAs can easily be monitored for by, for instance, watchlisting User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. Spinning Spark 16:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Spinningspark, you may be interested in this gadget proposal. Commons has a gadget where you can select which sorts of watchlist notices you want to see; it shouldn't be that hard to get it over here. Unfortunately, the gadget proposals page doesn't get a lot of eyeballs, so it hasn't gone anywhere at the moment. APerson ( talk!) 17:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

Closed as clearly passed. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Finally, we could also advertise ongoing RfAs at Template:Centralized discussion. It is a heavily watched page, with over 400 watchers.

Support A3

1. Support. CENT is a heavily watched page, and I think, in addition to advertising RfAs on users' watchlists, this would tend to attract the attention of more experienced editors rather than new users, in contrast to an indiscriminate site banner. I'd probably say that majority of CENT page watchers are familiar with Wikipedia policy and processes. Biblio worm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Support I sometimes miss RFA's I would have liked to comment on because I refuse to have RFA on my watchlist due to the unending quagmire on the talk page. I just don't even want to know what is happening there anymore as it repeats itself ad nauseum (emphaisis on the nausea). This would help get the word out without requiring watching the page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. a good option to extend the reach of the watchlist notice. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. As the others have said, a supplemental method which will again attract active users. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. BUT only if {{ User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} were added to the bottom of Template:Centralized discussion (maybe as optional). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Support, per template. Johnbod ( talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Support -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 05:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Support Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Support Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Support. Reh man 13:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Support - Another sensible place. Rlendog ( talk) 14:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Support. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Support Might be a bit much, but worth a try. BMK ( talk)
14. Support If we increase awareness of RfAs, we'll have more of the community commenting, and isn't the point of RfAs to see if the community trusts the user? JQTriple7 ^talk 03:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
15. Support Yes, yes and thrice yes. RfAs are a form of centralised discussion and should therefore appear on the centralised discussions list. Waggers TALK 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
16. Support SteveStrummer ( talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
17. Support – Of the three options, I think this is the best one. It will attract people interested in the inner workings of the site without potentially alienating those who just want to go on with their regular editing tasks. Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
18. Same as above.. More !voters— UY Scuti ^Talk 07:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
19. Support Hugh ( talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
20. Only if {{:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} gets added instead - Many of us have this on our talkpages already and IMHO this template looks better than a normal link... – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
21. Support : See fr:Wikipédia:Accueil de la communauté. -- Nouill ( talk) 05:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
22.  Sandstein  09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
23. Support ^{My name is}not^dave ( talk/ contribs) 10:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
24. Support on the WP:CENT page itself, using the normal {{ User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}. I realize this is exactly what the proposal is, but wanted to clarify anyway. We shouldn't add anything to {{ cent}}, it could easily bloat it when we have multiple RfAs. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
25. Support - Just a harmless method. No further explanation needed. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
26. Support - seems reasonable. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
27. Support. Jonathunder ( talk) 03:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
28. Support - Another good way to get the word out. Prhartcom ( talk) 03:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
29. Support Again, RfAs concern everyone because admins serve everyone. RfA should not be some dark corner watched by a few. Happy Squirrel ( talk) 03:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
30. Support - though I'd personally prefer if this were subject to the same restrictions suggested in the watchlist notice section, it's not a dealbreaker for me. ansh 666 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
31. Support another great idea which was working before the RfC was closed. CENT watchers tend to be experienced editors, who would be keenly interested in knowing about RfAs -- samtar ^whisper 07:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
32. Support this is a good place given the rare occurrence of these nowadays. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
33. Support - as long as the # of RfA's don't pick up again, this is fine. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
34. Support. The inclusion of this template on the Community Portal makes a convenient place for those interested in behind-the-scenes workings of the community to note. Espresso Addict ( talk) 15:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
35. Support, nothing wrong with more people knowing about it, and people looking at CENT are obviously interested in internal project discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
36. Support Good for attracting experienced users who don't watch WP:RFA. clpo13_{( talk)} 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
37. Support Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
38. Support Great idea per above. Sam.gov ( talk) 19:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
39. Support -- QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 09:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
40. Support – Again, don't see any real downsides. CT Cooper · talk 13:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
41. Support, great initiative. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose A3

1. I think that the reason given by BethNaught just below is a good reason not to bother with this. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose too much clutter for this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose leads to systematic bias - only the people watching that page would be reached. Banedon ( talk) 04:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   That's actually a good reason to do it! -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   Kudpung can you explain why that is a good reason? Banedon ( talk) 09:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

4. Oppose Centralised discussions don't include admin promotion, in my opinion. It doesn't affect anyone other than the candidate, but CENT notices should be for widespread topics. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose, strongly, these are not the same kind of discussion. CENT is mostly about sitewide policy, don't go ruining it by adding only tangentially related discussions. Please allow editors to pick what interests them. Instead "promote" {{ User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} to "official" status - probably moving to {{ RfX Report}}, and by encouraging its use on several pages - e.g. wp:Administrators#Becoming_an_administrator, wp:Requests for adminship (it is used, but not advertised, there), and maybe a couple more, maybe even wp:CENT, the page, *not* the template. (I transclude both CENT and Cyberpower678/RfX on my useer page). - Nabla ( talk) 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose Only people who watch the centralised discussion template are insiders anyway. No point of having both this, and the watchlist notice. Brustopher ( talk) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   It's transcluded at the Community portal, where it presumably gets quite a few views, including from some like me who do not use a watchlist. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

7. Oppose No. CENT lets regulars know where discussions need more participants. RfA doesn't and regulars already participate there if they want to. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments on A3

• There is already a template, {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}, that carries an automatically updated list of RfAs. If the intention is to put RfA notices on a template which is transcluded in major fora, we should just add this one instead. BethNaught ( talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• How many people that watch T:CENT don't already keep an eye on RfA and would be persuaded to !vote if they saw it there? I don't imagine this number is very high; people who follow T:CENT are likely already in the "in" crowd. —  Earwig  ^talk 09:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  I don't watch T:CENT but I do cast my eye over it when visiting the Community Portal. The fact that RfAs aren't included there but other forms of RfC are doesn't make much sense to me. Waggers TALK 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• If we do use that Cyberpower report, it needs to be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• We should start by adding this RfC to CENT. I only found out about it as people started trying to close it. The people who currently watch CENT naturally have an interest in what appears there. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I don't like the idea that we're basically duplicating another template. Like above I think it's simple just to have a version where both are included. Template:Centralized discussion and RFAs or similar could transclude both. Advertising that template seems like a good idea too. -- Izno ( talk) 12:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

Closed as clearly not passing. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

If this proposal were implemented, all threaded discussions which contain more than one comment will be moved to the talk page. The first reply will be left, so that users who see the vote and the subsequent reply will know the initial topic of the transplanted discussion.

Support B1

1. Support. Long, extended arguments are a large part of what makes RfA a disorganized and stressful place. Biblio worm 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Support. Threaded discussion can take place on the talkpage. Long arguments between support/opposers are a drain and make out the RFA is more contentious than it actually is. With certain editors arguing with every support/oppose vote in opposition to their position, this is a necessity. While Mkdw has a point, that the base reason for arguments should be tackled, hoping that incivility will be policed is a lost cause. The other reason for to-and-fro arguments is people disputing the legitimacy of the editors vote - that is something the closing crat decides on, not other voters - moving all that rubbish off the main page is quickest and easiest solution to the problem. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Support While I'm sympathetic to the idea that RfA should be a discussion, the discussions referred to here are rarely about the candidate and are consequently rarely useful or productive. 'Discussions' are usually about the specific usefulness of a particular voter's admin criteria. As such I support keeping discussions to the talk page, perhaps with a small 'discussion on talk page' template on the main page below a vote which has been replied to. Sam Walton ( talk) 10:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Support. Corrections to obviously incorrect comments are important, but discussion should be on the talk page. — Kusma ( t· c) 16:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Support. In my experience the number of people who care about a 'discussion' is pretty few, certainly far less than the number of people who participate in a RfA. They also tend to be uncivil shouting matches over fine points that most uninvolved people don't think is a big deal. There's no point cluttering the main page with a bajillion arguments: just relegate them to the talk page, with at most a section that summarizes ongoing discussions (e.g. "discussion about this user's conduct in this page"). Banedon ( talk) 05:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Support – talk pages have always been for discussion purposes. sst✈ ^(discuss) 05:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Strong support, per Sam. Discussions are rarely useful. Reh man 13:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Strong support per all above. JQTriple7 ^talk 03:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Support With precise voting percentages specified for sure-fire success or failure, RfA is more of a vote than a discussion. If we were consistent about using the talk page for all discussions attached to votes, readers would get into the habit of looking there, and there would be no reason to claim that discussions had been "buried" by being moved there : Noyster (talk), 13:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Support: threaded comments in this context often serve no purpose other than for users to say "My opinion is better!" Occasionally conversations are needed to clarify or inform, but the talk page is fine for that. — 2macia22 ( talk) 10:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Support: We ought to curtail the threaded comment space, because justifiably or not, many of these comments can seem like 'piling on' to the person who's attracting unfavorable comments (unless greater than usual care's taken in how the comments are framed). loupgarous ( talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Support: In fact I've always despised the idea that an oppose always needs to be justified or could it be discounted, plus the idea that oppose votes carry more sway then support vote. Currently an oppose vote carries 200% more weight then a support vote, this means for every oppose you need 3 supports to pass. I would support an semi-anonymous automated vote system which compares supports vs opposes and has a threshold of 50% to pass RFA. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 21:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Support for consistency per Noyster. ansh 666 03:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
14. Support disallowing comments threaded within others' !vote point. Comment on others' comments in your own !vote point (ArbCom commenting style), or use the Discussion section (checked, it is still there), or use the talk page. Threaded discussions in the Neutral section would probably be OK. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
15. Support - the recent RfAs have seen trolling discussion moved to talk and then hatted, which seems to greatly improve the atmosphere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
16. Support, necessary but not sufficient. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose B1

1. Oppose I believe RFA should be more like a discussion and less like the election it obviously has become. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose: While I agree with moving long discussions to the talk page, imposing a rigid rule such as this will cause unnecessary and distracting fragmentation, and the implementation of the rule would be mere busywork. Whether performed by clerks or any user in good standing, moving to the talk page should be an exercise of discretion. BethNaught ( talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose RFA was always meant to be a discussion. Ending discussion because of incivility is not the answer. The problem herein lies with editors who are uncivil and need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Mkdw ^talk 22:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. I like the idea of doing this on a case-by-case basis, but I think that doing it automatically is too formulaic and would hamper some useful discussions. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose - this was attempted on an RfA where I had commented. It was, to say the least, irritating. RfA isn't a vote. It's a discussion. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose - if RFA is only to be a vote, then we should move it to the voting platform. We already have the ability to collapse long sections as needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. RFA is a discussion, and moving discussions to the talk page has the potentially to create broken discussions. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose too formulaic, and may actually be counterproductive. Currently, I can trust that within the cesspool of such a discussion, somebody somewhere has the right idea; and if I follow all the links and read all the diffs, I will eventually figure it out. Without discussion, a !voter could say what they liked without much consequence. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose I do not think RfA pages need to be censored or otherwise shortened.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose per Beeblebrox and Mkdw. Threaded conversations are often an important part of the discussion when there is a controversial issue. Relegating those to the talk page would hamper the discussion, and any inappropriate comments would still exist albeit on the talk page. Rlendog ( talk) 14:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose per WP:NOTAVOTE. However, I'm all for removing, collapsing, or moving to the talk page any inappropriate and/or off-topic discussion that has no relevance to the RFA itself. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. If the environment is hostile, disallowing discussion is not a solution. That way, some users may be encouraged to leave hostile "oppose" votes, knowing that other users would not be able to answer them. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose, discussion is IMO helpful for the most part at RfA. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose, unless we're throwing in the towel and saying that RfAs are just votes and not in any way discussions. BMK ( talk) 01:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
15. Sorry, but this strikes me as completely counterproductive. Burying stuff on the talk page somewhere doesn't make it go away, it just serves to fragment discussion and make the main RfA look even more like a straw poll. As others have said: remove comments that are disruptive or off-topic, but do not remove everything unconditionally. If editors are discussing something appropriately, keep it on the main page. —  Earwig  ^talk 09:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose I like the idea but I think it won't work out well in practice. Most people won't read the talk page and will base their decisions on what they see in the oppose or support !vote statement. Threaded discussions allow other editors to provide context to a !vote and that context can sometimes be valuable. A fully formed context needs discussion and leaving anyone with an automatic default last word is not a good idea. -- regentspark ( comment) 16:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose: this hasn't worked in practice and I object to the idea that someone can write something unsubstantiated or even flat out wrong in their support/oppose, but no-one is allowed to challenge them directly beneath, instead being relegated to a separate page no-one will bother to visit. Even if one response is allowed, I don't think this would help anything. If you want to read the support/oppose !votes, why do you not want to read the threaded discussion that goes with it? — Bilorv _(talk) ^{(c) (e)} 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose There is a general comments section on each RfA which people should, but do not use, for threaded discussion. Just move it all there instead of under !votes. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
19. Strong oppose Either free discussion should be allowed on the voting page or no discussion should be allowed at all. This isn't f***ing Twitter. Spinning Spark 16:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose – The problem isn't that threaded discussions are allowed. The problem is the content of some of the threaded discussions, and more directly the attitudes behind some discussions. Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
21. RfA != Vote— UY Scuti ^Talk 08:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose Hugh ( talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose - It's better to keep everything on one page (even if it is long!). – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose Tough call. On one hand I agree it should be a discussion, but it often goes in the wrong direction. Let's just keep it the way it is, and be perhaps more liberal on moving clearly off-topic, overly critical and argumentative discussions to the talk page, which I guess is what we have been doing — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose of two minds about this, it wouldn't be tolerated in real life to stand outside a polling station and hector someone for voting the way they have, but open and free discussion is part of Wikipedia's culture and how we do things here. How about a compromise, allow discussion to take place as it does now, but to as a rule collapse and hide such discussion after the initial comment.-- KTo288 ( talk) 12:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose completely, as those above who point out that RfA is intended to be a discussion; removing that discussion is exactly the wrong thing to do. cheers, Lindsay ^Hello 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. WP:RfA says - "All Wikipedians....are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA", and that's how it should be.
28. Oppose: I support moving RfA discussions that show even the slightest sign of continuing into a long thread, but disallowing all threaded discussion on the main page is overkill. Esquivalience ^t 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose In my experience threaded discussion can be good and bad, so we should be judging and removing it on a case-by-case basis, not outlawing it outright. It's not that hard to see when something has crossed the line and needs to be moved to the talk page. ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose: disallowing features because it's difficult to police abuse is a loose strategy. There is a number of ways threaded discussions can be improved (collapsing, found-this-helpful buttons, et cetera) ale ( talk) 18:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose: antithetical to the idea of it being a discusion. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. If a conversation starts to get long or heated it should be moved. Otherwise, leave it where it is. — Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. "disallow [...] discussion" is generally not a good start for any proposal here. This is no exception. - Nabla ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC) PS: But people that go on to question / comment most votes that they disagree with should be strongly discouraged. One nasty aspect - of WP, not only RfAs - is that some editors go on making it repeatedly, as if we they knew for sure we did not notice their comment somewhere else which would 'obviously make us change our vote'. so they repeat it a bazillion times. That should be removed (or actively ignored) as non-constructive noise - Nabla ( talk) 00:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose. Per Nabla. Discussion is the only way to get to consensus. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose this will cause confusion about where is the discussion for what. It is better to be together. Meta discussion can be on the talk page. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose – This would encourage the process to be based upon a simple vote, rather than upon deliberation. Also, this would create problems because when people comment, someone would then have to remove/move those comments, which would likely cause friction; "why did you remove my comment...?!", etc. Lengthy threads can always be moved to the talk page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose - RfA is meant to be more than just a vote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose - clerking should deal with this.  — Scott • talk 10:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. I don't think it can be too highly stressed that it's a discussion, not a vote. Espresso Addict ( talk) 15:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose should be a discussion not a vote per above. Wugapodes ( talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose, RfAs, while having a strong numeric component, are meant to be a discussion, not a vote. Inappropriate attacks and aspersions are one thing, but people shouldn't be prevented from expressing, and discussing, legitimate concerns about an RfA candidate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose: Excessively long threads, or threads that veer off topic (i.e. start discussing general policy/philosophy as opposed to the particular candidate) should be moved. However, the need to rebut erroneous accusations (and the need to rebut erroneous rebuttals) is vital to prevent one false or misleading accusation from creating a pile-on effect. -- Ahecht ( TALK
    PAGE) 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose Nonsense. Discussion is good and moving the discussion somewhere else achieves nothing. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose – Per above, nothing wrong with having the discussion, but in any case if it had to be done I would move all replies to the talk page for the sake of fairness. CT Cooper · talk 13:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose The discussion will still exist. It should be clearly visible. Gizza ^{( t)( c)} 01:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose Nothing wrong with making discussion transparent Pschemp ( talk) 00:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments on B1

"Discussion is good and moving the discussion somewhere else achieves nothing". I couldn't disagree more, sometimes discussion is good, sometimes it's a complete waste of time. A massive three-page rant on ANI between two IPs on everything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a "discussion" for the pair of them, but a colossal pain in the backside for everyone else. Similarly, anyone blocking Eric Corbett will likely receive a "discussion", but probably one that many would prefer to avoid like the plague. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 clearly support for limiting the number of questions being asked (even some of those opposed expressed concern about the number of questions being asked). By a strict number count, 41 (38.6% of those participating, and 50% of those supporting) people indicated support of limiting to 2 questions. The next closest was 17 (20.7% of support, 16% of total participants) giving no indication of what they preferred but supporting a limit in general. For followups, there is general consensus that followup questions should be allowed. There is consensus for limiting the number of questions asked, with most the supporting a limit of 2 questions. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

A primary source of stress at RfA may very well be the often large amount of questions asked. Therefore, the community might wish to consider limiting the number of questions that any given editor can ask of a candidate. If you support this proposal, please specify in your !vote what you believe the limit should be. (Example: "Support a limit of [x] questions.")

Support B2

1. Support a limit of two questions. I've seen some editors ask a large number of boilerplate, impersonal questions, and that isn't really helpful, in my opinion. An excessive number of questions can also cause stress for the candidate. Biblio worm 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Support in principle if concerns about follow-up questions, which I do think are important, can be resolved. I think a limit of two or three questions plus reasonable follow-ups is a reasonable upper limit. BethNaught ( talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Support a limit of one question and one follow up (related) question. I also think editors who routinely ask questions but never put down in support, oppose, or neutral should be barred from asking questions. They do it because they can, not because they're interested in the process or voting. Mkdw ^talk 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

   I also support Johnbod's proposal to limit the number of questions annually. Mkdw ^talk 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

4. support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each if warranted. No more long lists of boilerplate questions. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Absolutely support. Some people at recent RfAs have been making a mockery of the question process. I agree with Peacemaker's suggestion: limit of two questions, with one possible followup for each. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Support a limit of one question and one follow up (related) question. This will focus editors' minds on what they really consider important. Just Chilling ( talk) 03:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Definitely, this is something that has bugged me for a while – especially the boilerplate questions. Like those above, I think two questions per user sounds like a reasonable limit. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Support. With the proviso that clearly further clarification questions should be allowed. "This is your one question and thats it" does not really work when someone deliberately gives an evasive/ambiguous answer. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Support limiting to one or two questions provided there isn't a limit on replying to answers for clarification or a request for expanding on the answer. Sam Walton ( talk) 11:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each. It's only reasonable. APerson ( talk!) 15:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Strong support, so long as follow-up questions are permitted. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Support A limit of 3 questions per user, with 1 follow-up question permitted. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Support – or, more accurately Absolutely double-plus support. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

    "Absolutely double-plus support"? 1984, anyone? ;) Biblio worm 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

14. Support, 2 questions. -- Pres N 22:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
15. Support two questions. However those who ask questions are able to post short follow ups to clarify answers or ask for more detail, not to ask new questions (except if that's one of their two allowed). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
16. Support two questions. The questioning has really become excessive.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 01:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
17. Support A limit of 2 questions per user, with 1 follow-up question each permitted. I'm tempted to suggest some sort of further annual limit per questioner. As anyone who gives talks and presentations knows, questions to the speaker are usually all about the questioner ... Johnbod ( talk) 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
18. Support some reasonable limit. Neutrality ^talk 04:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
19. Support I imagine most candidates will be happy to field all the questions in the world in a one-to-one situation. But in a one-to-many situation like RfA, it becomes very time-consuming for the candidate. We should not expect would-be administrators to dedicate all their time to Wikipedia or their RfA. Banedon ( talk) 05:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
20. Support a limit of 5 questions, including any follow-up questions. sst✈ ^(discuss) 05:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
21. Support a limit of 2-3 What Johnbod suggested. Not going to fix RfA by itself, but not a bad idea. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
22. Support a limit of 3 questions, including any follow-ups. initial questions. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
23. Support one question plus one clarification/followup Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
24. Strong Support (with a limit of 2) as the editor who wrote the ultimate summary of questions here. Multiple uestions that masquerade as one question should also be disallowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
25. Support. One question, plus one followup. Per Casliber. Reh man 13:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
26. Support a limit of 3 initial questions, but not on followups. Followups can be important in clarifying responses, as long as not abused. Rlendog ( talk) 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
27. Support - 2 questions, 1 follow up/clarification in total.-- Staberinde ( talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
28. Support 2 questions, plus one follow-up/clarification. StevenJ81 ( talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
29. 2+2. If there's three significant issues with the candidate, surely someone else will think of the third one. Worst case you can ask it on Talk and someone else will mention it. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
30. Support, 2q, +1 followup. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
31. Support 2 questions should be enough. I oppose limiting the follow-up, because that is more like a discussion, which is something we want. Debresser ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
32. Support 2 initial questions. Double-barrel questions like "Is it appropriate for an admin to do X? Why or why not?" should be counted as one question, but unreasonable attempts to game the system like "When are admins allowed to undo ArbCom sanctions, and also, do you plan to handle WP:RPP requests?" should obviously be counted as two separate questions. No particular opinion on followups. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
33. Support Too many hypothetical situations to deal with is ridiculous. JQTriple7 ^talk 03:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
34. Support - -- John Cline ( talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
35. Support, two questions. Follow-up and further details should be on the candidate's talk page. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
36. Support one question plus one clarification/followup Doug Weller ( talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
37. Support Doug Weller has the right limiting idea. -- regentspark ( comment) 16:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
38. Support Two questions with one followup. Spencer ^{T♦ C} 17:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
39. Support two questions and one followup for each. But followup has to be followup, not just an excuse to ask another question. — 2macia22 ( talk) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
40. Support. One question per questioner, with relevant follow-up questions only allowed for clarification. — sparklism ^hey! 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
41. Support two questions and one true followup only for clarification. That still leaves the chance for hundreds of questions but does not waste everyone's time on one person's list of questions. Legacypac ( talk) 01:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
42. Support – 2 questions and one follow-up. The more time RFAs typically take, the more you end up reducing the base of editors who will apply. I understand that the adminship process is important, but editors do have real lives and there is only so much time that one can devote to answering questions on Wikipedia without taking away from other tasks. Changes like this will do more to promote new RFAs than most will expect. Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
43. Support. Two questions, or one with follow-up, seems about right. HGilbert ( talk) 03:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
44. Support 2 questions and their follow-up (clarifications about the answer, details about the answer which bring up more questions). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
45. Yes, two at the most (two different questions). However, additional questions should be allowed for more clarification on the existing question.— UY Scuti ^Talk 08:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
46. Support three. -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 17:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
47. Support limit to 2, with occasional exceptions if they make a lot of sense. Unlimited followups per User:Only in death but hopefully the community can gently encourage people to be reasonable with them. The slew of questions can be overwhelming and may deter participation by conscientious !voters. delldot ∇. 00:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
48. Support - 2 questions & 1 follow up, No need for one editor to ask question upon question upon question etc etc. – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
49. One question per editor, or two at most.  Sandstein  09:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
50. Support RfA candidates need not be unnecessarily swarmed by questions. ^{My name is}not^dave ( talk/ contribs) 10:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
51. Support one question per questioner. If that editor wants to ask a followup question or another question then they should do so elsewhere (e.g. on the candidate's talk page) - the candidate (or another editor who hasn't already asked a question) would then have the option of adding it to the RFA itself (with suitable attribution in edit summary or text). There should also be a limit (500 characters?) on the length of each RFA question (and a rule that a question can't refer to a user essay etc or the questioner could ask "What are your views on <my long rambling incoherent essay>?" to get round the character limit). Again, a long question could be asked elsewhere and the candidate could could choose to copy it to the RFA page. DexDor ^(talk) 12:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
52. Weak Support around 3-4 questions. Might sound too much but it's not like we're not going to expect many questions from a single editor. Actually, Johnbud's proposal seems much better. -- TL22 ( talk) 13:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
53. Support – Support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each if warranted. This should satisfy most every curious mind, without handing over the microphone indefinitely. SteveStrummer ( talk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
54. Support This is sensible. We'll probably need another RfC to dictate exactly how many they can ask, but I'd say no more than two. I think this restriction will wean out the more ridiculously vague and counter-intuitive questions, helping provide a more concise and informative picture of the candidate's suitability — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
55. Support Per MusikAnimal.Do need a limit on the number of questions max 2 Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
56. Support As an alternative to a hard and fast limit, how about a questioner can ask as many questions as he likes, of which the candidate is only obliged to answer any two of his choosing,-- KTo288 ( talk) 12:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
57. Support a limit of one question. If there are more than 15 questions at the end of a RfA, it shows that many voters didn't do their research. If an editor wants to ask any more questions, they may do so on the candidate's talk page. Esquivalience ^t 02:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
58. Support I think two questions. They can research the rest. Prhartcom ( talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
59. Support One question, one followup. I could live with two. If someone asks a particularly great question on another RfA, someone else will put it on here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
60. Support 2 questions. If certain questions become perennial ones asked in several different RfAs by several different editors, then they should also be added top the default questions asked of an RfA candidate, but this is neither here nor there. — Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
61. support, tentativelt, I am quite not sure, but let's see if it helps. No more than 2 questioning lines, i.e. a question with as much follow-up (threaded, mostly one on one) discussion as needed. Obviously the candidate can state that he has nothing to reply at any point, and that should finish the questioning line. - Nabla ( talk) 17:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
62. Support 2-3 single (i.e. not multi-part) questions, with reasonably unlimited followups, to help prevent both swamping the candidate and also endless scrolling for participants. KTo's proposal also sounds reasonable. ansh 666 03:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
63. Support limit of 2. kennethaw88 • talk 04:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
64. Support and that also should count multi-part questions as being multiple. There is getting to be an excess of questions. Questioners can prioritize what they want from the candidate and not waste everyone's time with stuff that no one counts for much. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
65. Support - Support limit of 2 single questions with unlimited, relevant followups. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
66. Support - encourages thinking harder about questions to be asked. Allow one clarification on each.  — Scott • talk 10:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
67. Support. The barrage of questions is certainly one factor that's offputting to potential candidates. Two carefully thought out questions, plus follow-up if needed, seems adequate. I'd also suggest some boilerplate to discourage editors from asking the same questions of every candidate; additional questions are most helpful to participants when tailored to the candidate's profile and answers to the standard questions. Espresso Addict ( talk) 15:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
68. Support per above. Jonathunder ( talk) 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
69. Support I don't have much opinion on the limit itself yet. Perhaps in stage III if necessary that can be discussed. Wugapodes ( talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
70. Support to encourage editors to ask meaningful questions instead of pursuing a line of questioning useful only to themselves. clpo13_{( talk)} 22:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
71. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
72. Support. Once an editor has !voted (even neutral), then xhe may not ask any further questions. If xhe has not !voted, then two questions; a followup is a question. If a !voter has lots of doubts about the candidate that requires posing many questions, then xhe can go directly to the oppose column without passing GO or collecting 200 answers. I'm not opposed to a multipart question that asks about six questionable user names or six potential vandal situations, but an editor should pose only one such multipart question. No further questions by proxy or second. I have faith that if an issue arises that concerns the community, then several editors will recognize the issue and pose questions. Glrx ( talk) 06:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
73. Support 2 questions with a follow-up on each. Recent RfA's (such as Biblioworm's, where one user asked 7 distinct questions) have had ridiculous numbers of questions. It also leads to RfAs being dominated by the few users who ask a whole slate of questions on each one, as other voters feel reluctant to add additional questions because so many have already been asked. Most RfA's get over 100 votes, so there's still the potential for 200+ questions, so I don't think this stifles our ability to engage the candidate in discussion. -- Ahecht ( TALK
    PAGE) 15:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
74. Support – Perfectly reasonable and long overdue – the number of questions being asked was making RfA unmanageable for candidates. This restriction will also encourage participants to be more selective on what questions they want to ask, thereby hopefully reducing the number of trivial/silly questions. If questions continue to be too high then I'm open minded about limiting it to one question per person per RfA (with unlimited relevant follow-ups). CT Cooper · talk 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
75. Support 2/3 questions with followups allowed. -- QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
76. Support Good way to limit the bloat. Gizza ^{( t)( c)} 01:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
77. Support two questions with a follow-up per person. By the way, what's a followup? (Never mind, I think I'll get it.) -- George Ho ( talk) 10:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
78. Support, and make it a small limit. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
79. Support - clearly sensible. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
80. Support two questions plus any needed follow-ups. Candidates have been facing a level of interrogation that is over-the-top for a voluntary position, more thorough than is deemed necessary for real jobs. Adrian J. Hunter^{( talk• contribs)} 02:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
81. Support two questions with allowances for follow up no more than 2 clarification questions per each original question. Editors asking the questions should be more than capable of phrasing their question clearly such that any reasonable candidate who is happy to answer the question, can answer it succinctly. Blackmane ( talk) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply
82. Support, long overdue measure. Recommend stop at 2. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose B2

1. Oppose This is meant to be a discussion. With provision that candidates should not be obligated to answer more than a limited number of questions. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose WP is supposed not to be censored and is not a democracy. Imposing this limitation is easily gamed as well as being unreasonable by effectively censoring legitimate enquiry and attempting to democratise the process by imposing artificial limits. Leaky Caldron 22:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. If you want the job, you should expect to answer a lot of questions. Of course, any candidate is free to ignore any questions they want. Everyking ( talk) 01:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose Per Everyking.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. As I know, candidates are not obligated to answer those questions. So, if there are too many questions, candidate may simply ignore some of them. There is no reason to limit, some candidates maybe like to be asked many questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

   That is true theoretically, but in practice, not answering the questions is looked upon unfavorably by !voters and may result in opposition. Biblio worm 21:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

6. Oppose - Almost impossible to enforce, and are we now making bureaucrats into RfA-cops? Surely we're not letting anyone or his nephew strike a question? Nope, questions are not really a problem, candidate can always say "I'm not going to answer becase that's (not a serious question/is impossible to answer/is a trick question/etc.) BMK ( talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
7. I get the idea, but I think a better approach would be to simply ignore questions that are not helpful, and not penalize candidates if they decide to not answer silly questions. Remember: they're optional. If candidates did this, the users asking them would realize they're not helpful and would hopefully stop. Or we can deal with them separately. But a blanket restriction doesn't make sense to me. —  Earwig  ^talk 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose per Everyking. But I would support a limit on non-candidate-specific boilerplate questions as suggested above; as Beeblebrox points out below, the main problem seem to be users who ask a lot of standard questions no matter the RFA or the candidate. This proposal though would limit all users from asking multiple questions - even if the questions are actually helpful in determining a candidate's skill or knowledge. Regards So Why 21:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose: getting rid of the stigma of a candidate refusing to answer some of the questions would solve this problem, although of course that's not an actionable thing we can vote on. I don't feel we need a strict limit and this will surely only cause bickering when it comes to multiple questions disguised as one (e.g. "How would you close the following 3 AfDs?"). I especially oppose the limit of two questions, as I think we need some leeway for a user to be able to ask a follow-up when they're not happy with a response. But if you'd already asked your two questions, then there'd be no chance for clarification, which would hinder everyone. — Bilorv _(talk) ^{(c) (e)} 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose per Everyking. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose One editor might have more than one question on point to the discussion, and the questions might be on widely separated topics. It's just a bad idea. loupgarous ( talk) 15:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose, it's a good idea in theory, because a lot of the occasions where someone asks multiple questions, they're either badgering or trying to trick someone into a gotcha moment, none of which are especially helpful to the process. However, I feel this would be unenforceable with editors acting as proxies for others to ask additional questions. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC). reply
13. Oppose per Vanjagenije and The Earwig. - Ne ll is 16:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose - editors should be allowed to question admin candidates however they feel reasonable. Editors who are asking multiple questions simply to be disruptive or to try to goad the candidate into spoiling their RfA are already easily recognized and frequently called out, there's no need for a hard limit. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 20:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose I think this is the wrong solution to the problem of inappropriate questions. Under this proposal disruptive individuals can still ask two inappropriate questions, while editors in good standing asking legitimate and pertinent questions are also limited to only two. This could mean in any given RfA there would be an equal number of daft questions to legitimate questions. We should be looking for a solution to limiting inappropriate questions, not imposing false barriers to legitimate questions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose per SilkTork. If the quality of questions is a problem, this is not the way to address that. Otherwise, I'm not convinced that we should limit good, useful questions. Begoon  ^talk 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose If you disallow a candidate to reply to a, b, c, d, and e, then that will only result in more opposes, as the candidate will only have chance to answer to a and b (if the limit is two), and for c, d, and e (where there !voter apparently has concerns as well) the !voter will have to assume that the candidate is not suitable. Miss out on a and/or b as well .. the candidate will never get a chance to explain himself. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose – My take on this is that limiting speech ultimately goes against the principle of freedom of speech, and creation of this rule also introduces unnecessary instruction creep. Candidates are not required to answer the additional questions. Since this appears likely to pass, people should be allowed two follow-up questions, rather than only one. This makes perfect sense, because people should be able to follow up on both of the two questions that they are "allowed" to post. The notion of being allowed two questions and only one follow-up question equates to, "you are allowed to ask two questions, but can only follow up on one of them". That would be bizarre and inappropriate. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
19. I've let this one percolate and I do not believe it to be the correct solution (per SilkTork's reasoning, though I came to that conclusion myself). I think clerking of the questions might be a better one which allows a soft rather than hard limit on the questions which can be asked. Obviously, certain criteria would need to be established, but I suspect everyone !voting for "good proposed !rule" has a certain types of questions in mind. -- Izno ( talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose Questions are important. Limiting the number of questions one user may ask is fine but limiting the total questions is going to convert RfA into a vote. Responses to not only reveal the way a candidate thinks but also forces the candidate to think about Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Expecting candidates to put aside a week of their lives to thoughtfully answer a large number of questions is not that big a deal. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. If you can't handle being asked questions, including sometimes unreasonable or "gotcha" ones, you can't even start to handle admin work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose Let the crats get involved if someone is being POINTy. I don't subscribe to limits on political discussion. Chris Troutman ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose Discussion should be free Pschemp ( talk) 00:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. This is how a democracy works. To impose a limit on dialogue, questioning, and good-faith discussion is an impediment to truth and fairness. Softlavender ( talk) 10:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments on B2

I want to suport this. The questioning has gotten absolutely absurd. Apparently there si now a sizable contingent of users who believe they have crafted the perfect set of questions that must be posted at every single RFA. I find this extremely obnoxious and a net negative to the already lousy environment at RFA. When I ask an RFA question, it is specific to that candidate, not just something I dreamed up that I imagine will be pertinent at every single RFA. That being said, I worry that this could limit follow-up on personalized questions if the initial answers seemed to miss the point or were otherwise insufficient. I'll give some more thought I guess. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you hit the nail on the head. Whenever I have asked a question at RFA, it has been because I was concerned about a potential deficiency with the the particular candidate's experience, and want to give them a chance to demonstrate they would act reasonably. (I wont ask a question to a candidate I'm not at least considering supporting) I wish there was a way to permit unlimited questions tailored to the particular candidate, while putting an end to boiler plate questions. But alas, I don't see a reasonable way to enforce such a restriction without it being excessively subjective. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

This proposal doesn't limit your ability to follow up with a threaded discussion, I read it as simply allowing only a set number of primary questions. If the first answer missed the point I don't imagine it being a problem to reply saying "Actually I was thinking about this aspect, could you discuss that?". Sam Walton ( talk) 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Agree that questioning has sometimes been excessive, but if this restriction goes through we'll also have to devise a regulation to rule out "cluster bombs" where many different questions are bundled into one as parts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)... : Noyster (talk), 22:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Won't this have the reverse effect—people asking more questions and more people asking questions—in order to make full use of their limited slots. While asking more questions in itself is not bad, the quality of questions might decrease. -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 06:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I feel like supporting this but I am hanging on the fence for several reasons already brought up. Besides for the reverse effect, my biggest concern is that the follow-up questions will be limited. I am willing to support two questions at most, but think that there should still be unlimited follow-up questions. Gug01 ( talk) 20:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It's been suggested that I should consider standing for RFA, but (1) I (like probably most editors) would get some opposes (e.g. I'd fail "You need at least a couple of GAs, and preferably an FA or two..." - I specialise in cleanup rather than adding content) so (however well I answered the questions) I couldn't be sure of passing. (2) Answering the questions could take some hours (say 20 questions at 30 minutes each). (3) I can't be sure that I'll have the time available in the next week (real-life happens). (4) Those hours spent answering questions (e.g. doing research into areas of wp I've no current intention to work in or considering all the possibilities of a hypothetical scenario) could be spent doing something else in wp. Thus, I choose to do things from my (very long off-wiki) Wikipedia to-do list rather than stand for adminship. There may be hundreds of experienced Wikipedians in a similar position. DexDor ^(talk) 13:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Questions would naturally be limited if RFA was done in batches, every three months, as Guy Macon and Kudpung suggested for another reason, somewhere above. Decisions would also be fair-er, or perceived that way, as all candidates in a batch would likely get approximately the same treatment at the same time. Spreading RFAs out gives too much power to whichever regulars happen to have a ton of time available, and otherwise appears to make the RFA process random. Discussion would naturally focus on relative quality of candidates, e.g. how it does or does not seem right that Candidate B's current votes total is lower than Candidate D given B seems better in some way. Doing them all together also would make it worthwhile for more editors to come participate. -- do ncr am 00:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I think that this is a great idea. Is there a way to make it part of the RfC? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• WP:BOLD -- Fauzan ^{✆ talk} _{✉ mail} 09:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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.

By a strictly percentage count, 71.2% of participants support expanding the discretionary range to 65–75%. If we applied the current standard for RfA to this, it would be solidly within the discretionary range of 70–75%. Based on a very large number of other community discussions I have watched over the years, this is clearly a supermajority. This discussion is closed as clearly supported. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

We could expand the discretionary range to 65–75%, making it a 10% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%).

Support C1

1. Support Clearly, we have a problem. Proposals to make radical changes to RFA have failed. Perhaps this small, incremental change is enough to at leat improve it a little and get us what we need, which is more active admins. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
2. Support Standards have inflated largely because there is a belief that adminship is a lifetime appointment (i.e. nearly impossible to desysop). Yet the question comes up time and time again, for examples of admins who should be desysopped. One problem influencing another. As such, I think the community standards have risen too high because of this factor and need to be lowered. If desysopping is a problem, then that function should be addressed and not increasingly rising standards for candidates. We're turning a lot of qualified individuals as a result. Mkdw ^talk 22:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
3. support this, for the same reasons as above, but I would really like a wider range per C2. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 22:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
4. Support. This is a good start, although I prefer C2. I'm just supporting this so that at least something can get done in the event that C2 doesn't pass. Biblio worm 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
5. Support as second choice per Biblioworm. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
6. Support - a 2/3 majority is normal in the real world for important decisions. Just Chilling ( talk) 03:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
7. Support - although agree as per Biblio & Melanie. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
8. Support: two-thirds is a reasonable level although crats still need to determine consensus. RfAs have passed in this range so it makes sense to make this explicit. BethNaught ( talk) 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
9. Support as reasonable. APerson ( talk!) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
10. The way I see it, Crats are expected to exercise discretion anywhere from 0% to 100%, so it's not like they cannot already take particular circumstances into account at ± 1% just outside the existing "range". But I see nothing wrong with making it explicit that discretion can be used to pass some candidates in the upper 60s. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
11. If we have a discretionary range at all, it should be wide enough to matter. Also per Beeblebrox. — Kusma ( t· c) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply

    Just noting that I prefer 65% to 2/3, but prefer 2/3 to the status quo. — Kusma ( t· c) 08:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

12. Support OK, of course these are not VOTES, and any thing can just be thrown out by the crat. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
13. Support this is still only a 10% range. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
14. Support a little less rigidity would help. -- Pres N 22:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
15. Support as close to a two-to-one majority : Noyster (talk), 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
16. Support. The current requirement is too high and causes unnecessary stress to all those involved. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
17. Support absolutely, current range is too high and doesn't allow crats the discretion they need. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
18. Support. A 2/3 majority should be sufficient consensus to approve tools, given the current level of scrutiny.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 01:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
19. Support As close enough to 2/3rds for me. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
20. Support Johnbod ( talk) 03:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
21. Support Theoretically, RFA is not a vote, and crats can throw out anything; widening the acceptable range, I think, brings us closer to the ideal, and gives the crats more room to exercise discretion. It should NOT ever be a hard line. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
22. Support - The requirement for more than a 2/3 supermajority is excessive. Carrite ( talk) 07:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
23. Support. Closer to what we need. Reh man 13:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
24. Support - I think this is a sensible range. Rlendog ( talk) 14:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
25. Support (either at 65% or, as below, 2/3). StevenJ81 ( talk) 17:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
26. Support, if the process is reduced to a vote, a two-thirds majority is quite sufficient for any purpose. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
27. Support. -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
28. Support - This "threshold" needs to be lowered in order to successfully reform the RfA process. Roughly two-thirds support is plenty high enough IMO. Guy1890 ( talk) 07:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
29. Support - -- John Cline ( talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
30. I like 2/3 because it's a cleaner fraction, but okay with 65% also. A 2/3 majority is fair for concluding the existence of consensus with discretion (and note we are not saying they get an automatic pass here). 3/4 as an upper bound is still fine, I think. —  Earwig  ^talk 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
31. Support – Consider me a "bandwagon fan"... (Also, 2/3 makes more sense to me anyway... I might even be talked into 3/5, if more people were supporting the one below...) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
32. At least. L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
33. Support 2/3 as a more common fraction than 65%, but would be okay with it either way. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
34. Support this makes sense. — 2macia22 ( talk) 11:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
35. Support It's too high at the moment. This could go some way to easing stress. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
36. Support They say friends are forever but enemies accumulate. Currently if you edit carefully, accurately and do a lot of cleanup (deletions, 3RR reports etc) you can easily accumulate enough enemies to fail an RfA. Legacypac ( talk) 01:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
37. Support – A two-thirds majority is typically considered enough for consensus throughout the rest of the site, so why not here? If there are major issues pointed out by the other third of participants, the closing bureaucrat can take them into account when making their decision. That's why it's called a discretionary range, after all. Giants2008 ( Talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
38. Support. I wrote a comment in favor of a small change in the discretionary range. It would have added a few more administrators this year. I think that it might actually encourage a few more candidates. I think even two/thirds would be an improvement and provide more encouragement while not seriously diluting the standard. Since that it is not an option, I favor this proposal. I feel that the other proposals in this section, C3 and C4 in particular, are too extreme at this time. Donner60 ( talk) 05:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
39. Support, but weakly; "discretionary range" would mean a great deal more to me if I hadn't analyzed the voting patterns of RfA over the years, and found that bureaucrats weren't exercising discretion in the first place: almost without exception, every candidate over the line passed, and every candidate under the line was rejected. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
40. Given the trust we put on the bureaucrats, I think this is no big deal— UY Scuti ^Talk 08:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
41. Support, I think most people who would get through because of this are probably good candidates; if they have big problems with civility or competence they'll likely get more opposes than 35%. delldot ∇. 01:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
42. Support. This is sensible. 65% shows enough community trust to make it worthy of discretion. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 09:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
43. Support It's a bit of a tight threshold. ^{My name is}not^dave ( talk/ contribs) 10:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
44. Support 2/3 majority is sufficient consensus given the current level for scrutiny . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
45. Support. Prefer 60%, but this is acceptable if I can't get that. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC). reply
46. Support. -- œ ^™ 09:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
47. Support. -- Teukros ( talk) 12:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

    Support iff stated as two-thirds. Jonathunder ( talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Moving my !vote to make intent more clear to closer. Jonathunder ( talk) 15:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

48. Support, though I would prefer 67% (2/3) to 65%. I'm not as concerned about this letting unqualified candidates slip through the cracks. If there are legitimate issues we always have plenty of voters ready to jump on the oppose bandwagon, and a team of bureaucrats who I trust will be able to spot strengths and weaknesses in the arguments. ~ Awilley ( talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
49. Support 65% is close enough to 2/3 and works for me. I can also go lower. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
50. Support - Let's do this then if everybody favors it. George Ho ( talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
51. Support We always say things shouldn't be vote based, a higher range for discretion allows well, more discretion... RFA's should be considered more case by case than percentage wise. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 23:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
52. 'Crats do consider RfAs that finish below 70% in certain circumstances. And, though my memory may be playing me false, I think at least one RfA was passed at less than 70%. The threshold is not fixed, and 'Crats have been voted in for their judgement in when exactly to hold a discussion. Given that we don't currently have a fixed threshold, is this proposal aiming to make a fixed threshold? So 'Crats would be obliged to discuss every RfA which finished between 65% and 75%? Or is it more of a notice to 'Crats to consider more often and more sympathetically those RfAs which finish between 65% and 70%? If it is the later, then I don't see that as a bad thing, and would support. I am less enthusiastic about making the threshold a fixed one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
53. Seeing more RFAs fail a bit short of threshold is disappointing. I believe two thirds is a reasonable improvement. Max Semenik ( talk) 17:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
54. Support moreinline with a 2/3rds majority. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
55. Support as first choice. — Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
56. Support, but 2/3 is better. "Needs 2 supporters for each 1 opposer" is a very nice round and common number. ( Guy Macon: excellent catch! :-). 3/4 ("3 for each 1") for the top is fine. Actually it could be more sophisticated. We could have a sort-of Bayesian estimator, that is, for large vote turnouts we could have a rather lower margin, and for very low vote turnout we should have a higher margins. Say, a candidate should probably pass with a 1500 to 1000 vote (60%), but currently falls below the margins; and a candidate with a 4 to 1 vote (80%), should not pass, but currently is above the margin. No, it is not overly complicated, a relatively simple table would do. - Nabla ( talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
57. Support, also noting that there isn't really a practical difference between 66.67% and 65.00%. kennethaw88 • talk 04:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
58. Support - basically lowering it to 2/3 but to a nice round number. 2/3 doesn't sound unreasonable at all and would still be discretionary in this system. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
59. Support, but let's state it as ⅔.  — Scott • talk 10:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
60. Support. The x% measure the candidate, but also the !voters. Evaluating the standard amplitude of the various !voters sets to 10% seems to be an understatement. Moreover, I have not the impression that the admins that have been desysopped for cause were those with the lowest x%. Pldx1 ( talk) 18:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
61. Support while I would prefer a 2/3s like Guy suggested below, this is pretty close and seems reasonable enough. It's the reason we have bureaucrats in the first place, to make sure that there is in fact consensus when it drops to this low point (though obviously not the only reasons). Wugapodes ( talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
62. Support there are really very few RfAs that this would apply to, and occasionally they get a crat chat already or have even been promoted, but I see no reason not to make this change. People worrying over 65% vs 2/3, have you checked how many RfAs you're worrying about? (The answer is "nowhere near enough to justify the fuss".) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
63. Support I like the 2/3rd number but 65 is fine too. Obviously, there is the danger that lowering the threshold will make vote stacking easier but I think - and I'm probably a minority on this - our admin check systems are robust enough to handle maverick admins. The more the number of admins, the merrier. -- regentspark ( comment) 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
64. Support, absolutely. If more than two thirds (give or take, at 65%) of the people who checked you out decided you can be trusted with a few extra buttons, I would say there's a good chance you can be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
65. Support Bureaucrats shouldn't have their hands tied when a 2/3 majority is reached (give or take a percent). clpo13_{( talk)} 22:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
66. Support. The weight given to an oppose is too great. More discretion means that rationale behind the oppose will be given more attention. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
67. Support A modest tweak, but fair enough. -- joe decker ^talk 03:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
68. Support as having a wider discretionary range really does show that "RfA is not a vote" and the 'crats will weigh up the strength and weight of opinion if required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
69. Support if 67% is enough to override a presidential veto in the US, it surely should be enough for a bureaucrat to make a judgment call on a candidate (and 65% is a nice round number). Per SmokeyJoe, the weight given to nonsense oppose votes (which currently need 3 support votes to counter) is too high, so lets give the crats some more room to just the strengths of the arguments. -- Ahecht ( TALK
    PAGE) 15:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
70. Support – Per above, a rough two-thirds majority should be enough to justify promotion in many circumstances. The current 5% discretionary range is far too narrow to be helpful, and a stronger case can be made to expand it downwards rather than upwards. CT Cooper · talk 13:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
71. The ayes already have it by the strength of the arguments. I'm only adding my !vote here to help ensure they also have it by the weight of numbers.— S Marshall T/ C 19:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
72. Don't see a problem. Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
73. Support - Safe improvement. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
74. Strong Support Per above, 65% and 2/3 are pretty much the same thing here people, maybe 1 in 20 times it would be a difference. More admins are needed as Wikipedia continues to grow. Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply