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

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

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

I find that there is a rough consensus among editors that it would be helpful for a named panel of administrators and/or bureaucrats be listed on individual RfAs of whom would be called on to assist in addressing uncivil, problematic, and/or disruptive behavior.

There does not appear to be much agreement on any particular way to enact this at present. Many supports present particular methods of enacting this proposal (some have their support contingent on a particular method), but most are structurally different from one another and none are rallied behind. As a result, this proposal's ultimate success will largely be contingent on what kinds of consensus can be achieved for implementation during Phase II.

The prevailing support arguments are a) that any attempt to address civility issues at RfA is welcome and, if nothing else, this proposal is worth giving a shot, and b) that naming particular editors would help combat a perceived bystander effect at RfA and thus increase the chances of intervention.

The prevailing oppose argument is functionally unanimous, being that the proposal is unnecessary and that administrators and bureaucrats are already empowered by civility policies to clerk RfAs. However, the opposers are in a clear numerical minority, and it is clear from the arguments presented by supporters that they are unconvinced that uncivil, problematic, and/or disruptive behavior is being adequately addressed.

Based on my reading of this discussion, editors appear to want the following items ironed out. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but an aid.

• Should named panelists be the only editors able to address behavioral issues at a particular RfA?
• Should named panelists be compelled to a) not participate in the RfA, b) not be a nominator for the pertinent RfA, and c) not possess strong ties to the candidate, or any combination of the 3?
• Should named panelists, presuming they are not a bureaucrat, be capable of striking an individual's RfA vote as part of civility enforcement?
• Should named panelists be determined prior to or after an RfA begins?

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