Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/3

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.
Many thanks to all the participants. These three proposals are failing by wide margins. The next step is to see how much of a difference the four proposals that passed in Round Two will make: Concerned editors start searching for quality candidates, Auto-prospecting, Project for nominators, and Unbundling - some U1 and G7s. There was a strong consensus in Round One that the RfA process should be more productive and easier to navigate, and if the proposals that passed are sufficient to achieve the desired goals, then this series of RfCs is done. If not, then we'll need to take a closer look at what jobs aren't getting done as the admin corps shrinks, and what can be done about that.

- Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Round Two of the recent Requests for Comment (RfC) on the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process, there was an 8 to 4 vote (and two of the opposers later changed their minds) in favor of the proposal for "Not unless" candidates, and a 7 to 2 vote for Unbundling - limited block/unblock. We (the closers) are hoping that the broader community will respect the process and the rationales of these voters as much as we do. This vote will run for one week.

- Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For voters who haven't read the close to Round Two: four proposals got such broad support that they're not up for a vote here, and you're encouraged to read them. The two proposals here were the ones that got mild support, based on those voters' interpretations. Thanks for your participation. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a third proposal, "Probation", has been added. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]