Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 3

Miscellaneous post-mortem ideas from my own failed RfA
Here are some ideas which I had after my own failed RfA last December.


 * The overall question of experience (length of time, number of edits, amount of "high-quality" content created, etc., etc.) needs to be resolved. It's silly that RfA's continue to serve as battlegrounds for people on all sides of this dispute; a set of decisions need to be made, and everyone participating in an RfA needs to be on the same page, and the 'crats should be free (and expected) to discount !votes that are clearly based on a lack of acceptance of the settled decisions.


 * The current system of posing random questions to candidates, and then having people !vote based on what they think of the answers, doesn't work when a question doesn't have an obvious answer, and multiple different possible answers are all consistent with policy, and the !voters end up !voting on the basis of whether they agree with the candidate's viewpoint within that acceptable spectrum. Those issues should be hashed out separately; admin candidates shouldn't be caught in the crossfire and made scapegoats.


 * Some of the language in WP:ADMIN needs to be clarified. What, exactly, do comments like "administrators are expected to lead by example" or "administrators are not expected to be perfect" mean?  Is it, or should it be, the case that an admin has less of an excuse for acting cluelessly or negligently than a non-admin?  If administrators aren't expected to be perfect, is it proper that candidates apparently are expected to be perfect? :-)  I could probably accept any answer here, but it really needs to be made clear for everyone.

Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ADMIN means what it says. Administrators are expected to lead by example but aren't expected to be perfect. There's a lot of room between those two statements, and that is what is expected of admins. Administrators make mistakes but are expected to make fewer mistakes than most editors. That doesn't seem like a difficult concept. As to the expectation that admins are perfect at RfA, that's demonstrably false hyperbole. If RfA expects admins to be perfect, than no RfA with a single valid "oppose" !vote would ever pass. I was far from perfect (and still am for sure) but I passed.


 * You can't encapsulate the community's expectations in any policy or guideline, ever, because the community is a bunch of people who change their expectations all the time. At one time an editor with 3 months of experience and 1,000 edits could become an administrator, today people want to see a lot more. One reason why expectations have gotten higher is because people have come to realize how difficult it is to remove the administrator role from an editor once it is given. So people are understandably skittish, if an admin gets the tools and causes problems, especially in a subtle manner, it's a net loss to the project and difficult to fix. --  At am a  頭 23:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The motivation for my admittedly hyperbolic statement about RfA candidates being expected to be perfect was that many !voters will oppose a candidate who slips up on a single question, or answers one question in a way the !voter doesn't like. And yes, you're right when you point out that it's very difficult to rescind adminship, which means many people are hesitant to support a candidate who seems to have even a tiny flaw.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody can ever be perfect,  and one must  be tolerant  of genuine errors and slips of a mouse made by  admins. However, a lot of what  goes on  at  RfA  is based on  trust 'not  to  abuse the tools'. Unfortunately, abuse of the tools is one of the least  reasons why  a badmin  is a badmin. Unless we introduce CU for every  candidate -  which  the community  would never agree to - we won't  catch  the Pastor Theo admins who  apparently abused  to  a staggering  degree, every  ethic and policy an admin is expected to  uphold. There is therefore a lot  of gut  feeling  expressed by  the !voters, who  should nevertheless learn to  express it  in  a decent and accountable manner, and based on why  they  have that  gut  feeling. Otherwise, such  !votes are just  another 'I don't  like him/her'. Objectively, a review of a candidate's recent  editing  history  can well  reveal a person  who acts in  GF but  who  is clumsy  and inaccurate from  nature, and sadly, we can't give them the bit  either. That  said, I'm  also guilty now of getting  off topic -  all  of us here know already  that  the system  needs reforming and why, so let's move forward with  either supporting, developing, or rejecting  some of the suggestions for reform that  have already  been made in  these project  pages. It has become blatantly  clear since the inception of this reform  project  (and a long  time before that) that 99.9% of the problems with RfA are not  in  the system we use, but  in  the !voters who  use the system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Where has it become blatantly clear "that 99.9% of the problems with RfA are not in the system we use, but in the !voters who use the system"? On what evidence do you base this remarkably precise statistic? I know you warned me to stop posting views on this page that you disagree with (unconstructive views I think you called them, just one short of disruptive). So I am aware I am under threat. You are, after all, an august Wikipedia administrator with defacto rights under the current system to crush dissident content editors.


 * I feel equally clear it is the system that is at fault. There is no way you are going to change human nature. It just ain't going to happen. !Voters just do what they do, as they always have and always will. What are you advocating here? That !voters should listen to moralising, after which they will have epiphanies and spiritual conversions, and go away chastened. Then, the age of wiki-enlightenment will dawn, and forevermore, RfA will operate in a blaze of benign light and skillful means.


 * Nope, sorry, just don't see it. Five thousand years of moralizing Abrahamic religions have shown what a waste of time this approach is. So that leaves changing the system.


 * The system hasn't been thought through properly, period. There has to be a better way. If Kudpung has his way, we will be stuck with the status quo, augmented by earnest efforts to prop up and sustain the current ways of devaluing the people who actually write Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been shooting itself in its feet (the foundation – the content editors), and the current aim of the reform on this page is to encourage Wikipedia to shoot out its feet faster. Wikipedia's problems are systemic problems.


 * Well, there it is, might as well get it over with. Phew... said what needed to be said, and posted another nonconstructive view. Nothing left now, just sitting here quietly waiting for the block. Life as content editor sucks. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, suppressed again... --Epipelagic (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I read it, Epi. I don't think it's 'non-constructive'. We're really looking for ways to stop the bloodbath - you obviously want what we want, too. Maybe join in with the 'radical change' suggestions? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 03:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions for our course
I'd like to suggest using a radically different, but rather agreeable procedure for RFA, in which the process itself is more discussion-like. RFA is not a vote, so it should not be structured as such. There needs to be a way to stop the drive-by votes (RFA clerking is a start) and to actively encourage discussion among RFA participants.

There have been several proposals in the past to implement this type of procedure, namely utilizing an RFC-like structure, where editors can add positive/negative viewpoints on the candidate that others can endorse with their own rationale. A system like this would encourage editors to investigate the candidate and accurately evaluate their suitability for administrative tools. Under the current system, editors are not encouraged enough to leave a rationale with their votes. Although this is not required, it is difficult to treat RFA as a discussion if other editors don't treat it as such. Thus, there needs to be a way for us to restructure RFA in a manner that it creates difficulty for "drive-by !voters" and encourages discussion about the candidate, that can in turn be useful for the candidate regardless of the outcome. Any other opinions on this?

I also fear that this project may be losing momentum. As such, I would suggest that we begin making subtle, but useful changes to RFA and presenting them to the community for consideration. Some suggestions for this: allow administrator candidates to opt into implementing RFA clerking/other changes in their own RFA as a trial. Input? Tyrol5  [Talk]  22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perfectly valid points Tyrol, but  it's all  been more or less said before. What  we need to  do  now is to  move forward by accepting  what  we already  know is wrong  with  the current  system, and address those item  on  their respective pages of this project. This project which while  it  may  appear to  be slowing  down, is nevertheless probably the most  important  endeavour  to  change things that  we have even made. The project  has its detractors, but  they  have generally  not  come up with  any  constructive suggestions for alternatives. What  I/we are hoping  for is that Mr  Wales, who appears to  be clearly  in  favour of reform, would chime in  on  these pages soon at  least  either to offer encouragement for the discussions we have started, or to suggest  that  we are on  the wrong  track. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I still say we are not losing momentum but rather substantially agree with the merits being discussed. Here again, I agree. My76Strat (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The suggestion to change to the RfC version is still (AFAIK) on the table WT:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives, do feel free to make any further suggestions there. As said above, just because the initial flurry of discussion has reduced, doesn't mean that the project has stalled. It's a big change, and still active. Whilst I won't hold my breath for Jimbo, I think it won't be ages before the Clerks proposal is ready for the community, possibly for a trial run. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to WTT for the link to the proposal. @Kudpung/others: I haven't necessarily suggested that the project has come to a halt, but rather note that less discussion has occurred. This isn't a bad thing, but I merely advise participants to be active in the project (I'll admit that I haven't been very active recently) so that we don't lose momentum as other RFA reform proposals have.


 * On another note, I don't think it is possible for us all to agree on what is wrong about RFA, but we all obviously agree that there is something wrong with it (that's why we're here). What I mean to say is that we should encourage administrator candidates to reformat the RFA process just for their own RFA as a trial with the approval of the participants, all the while identifying and addressing obvious issues at RFA here. Tyrol5  [Talk]  15:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We're already all agreed that the main problem lies with the !voters and we don't need statistics to prove it. The individual aspects of the problem are discussed in depth at the sub pages at Voting and at Questions. Suggestions range from introdicing voting as a right, to doing away with voting altogether. Your suggestion: that we begin making subtle, but useful changes to RFA and presenting them to the community for consideration. Some suggestions for this: allow administrator candidates to opt into implementing RFA clerking/other changes in their own RFA as a trial, is certainly an idea to consider, and again we have a special page at Clerks that is being watched by those interested in developing the proposal of clerking and where such suggestions are most welcome. There is today on a current RfA is an occurrence that I personally consider to be a classic example of an attempt to simply disrupt an RfA that is going well. It's a situation where the !vote, IMHO, should definitely be indented by anyone - not just a clerk. This kind of voting (although relatively harmless in this particular instance) is one of the very reasons for this RfA reform project's existence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kudpung: I apologize, as I haven't been very active here recently, but thank you for the links to these discussions. I am working on a small set of my own proposals for posting on this project sometime soon. Thanks again, Tyrol5  [Talk]  14:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA clerks
(Copied to WP:RFA/C. Please continue the discussion  there)

I had my own ideas about the clerking process. I was thinking that in order for further cooperation among clerks, there should be an official committee just like the ArbCom, MedCom, etc. This would ensure the communications of the members. I was also thinking about the basis that you could be come a clerk: i): You had to have some formal experience or should have should a little interest in becoming a clerk. (of course) ii) A clerk should have at least 3 months experience and 500-800 edits. iii) No blocks or editing restrictions or if there have been restrictions of any sort on you're account, it should have been at least +6 moths ago. I would have brought it to the main page's talk page but I want to see what you think first. Regards. maucho eagle   (c) 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Note: (Copied to WP:RFA/C. Please continue the discussion  there)

RfA is a horrible and broken process
(Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there)

When exactly did RfA break? Looking back to 2003, when Jimbo Wales said becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. the process of becoming an admin was very different to how it is today. It looks to have been an almost entirely stress-free process, with people who would be WP:NOTNOWed today passing with 3 supports and 0 opposes. But then it was a very different encyclopedia back then. Is it realistic to expect RfAs to be stress-free when we also expect a certain level of competence from our admins? Catfish Jim &#38; the soapdish '' 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect the breaking was a gradual process rather than an overnight one. If you look at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month you might conclude that it broke in the Spring of 2008, but what seems to have happened then is that Rollback was unbundled, and "good vandalfighter" ceased to be a passport to adminhood. I'd agree that RFA should be a different place today than it was in its earliest days, but one of my concerns is that the shift in focus from judging people on their edits to judging them on the Q&A section is less likely to screen out candidates who aren't ready for the mop. Another concern is that the community is seriously divided as to what constitutes the requisite level of competence, and those divisions are played out in RFAs rather than in an abstract discussion as to what the general criteria for admin should be. If I went to a job interview and the interviewing panel spent half the interview arguing amongst themselves as to what the job spec should contain I would regard that organisation as having a dysfunctional recruitment process. So though some of the arbitrary criteria are certainly more exacting than they once were, and it is obviously more stressful than in the early days, I'm not convinced that it is more likely to sift good candidates from bad than RFA did in 2005/6.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the community is seriously divided in the way you suggest. !Voters, on the contrary, seem to unite during RfA, with a few anomalies. There have, I estimate, been more 0-10% and 90-100% supports at closure than there have 40-60%. The latter could be predicted to be equally common (if not more common) if community subdivisions regularly found candidates that certain factions favoured and others did not. Jebus989 ✰ 21:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there are lots of candidates that almost everyone can agree are NotNows, and some where support is over 90%. But neither fact is incompatible with my observation "that the community is seriously divided as to what constitutes the requisite level of competence". Division about the requisite level of competence is not the same as having community factions that favoured some candidates and not others. Take for example the issue of tenure, many RFA voters like to see 12 months activity, a few expect 15 months, others might support a candidate with only 6 months activity. But we don't have a rival faction opposing oldtimers for being part of the 2008 wiki-generation. Equally with editcountitis we have RFA !voters looking for minimal edit counts ranging from 3,000 to 6,000; I've even seen editors say they expect at least 8,000 edits, and one RFA this year succeeded despite some opposers citing notNow because of the edit count. But we don't yet have many voters with incompatible RFA criteria, if for example one third of !voters looked for edit count in the 3,000-9,000 range and another third expected over 10,000 edits then it would be impossible for any candidate to get a consensus level of support. RFA is broken but it is still possible for some candidates to get through.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What we are waiting for, is someone from the task force to volunteer to make a table of criteria compiled from users' essays on the subject, from which we can start to make some recommendations for minima. Currently there are no criteria at all; the only official statements are of the vague 'you should' recommendations such as (contrived example} 'You should have been around long enough to have a basic understanding of policy, and have enough edits to know how to create and delete articles.' RFA is broken but  generally those who should pass do get through - at least on their second attempt. The problem is that many potential candidates of the right calibre are refusing to subject themselves to a process that spends more time arguing about itself and with itself, rather than focusing on the candidate and making relevant, objective comments to support their !votes, and that allows candidates to be insulted and attacked with impunity at levels that would attract an indef block  elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you both suggesting a guideline be created which said (for example): ·Candidates should have 5000+ edits ·Candidates should have 12 months of activity etc.? Doesn't that remove any need for an RfA? If we attempt to set some kind of boundary on what opinions are acceptable rationales, they would undoubtedly be used as counterarguments ("What you expect 10,000 non-automated edits? WP:HOWTOVOTE says he only needs 5,000") so then you can then do away with the process and grant administrator rights to those as we grant autoconfirmed status, when a set of conditions are fulfilled. You are essentially suggesting everyone must enter the RfA discussion with the same mindset, else it's a 'seriously divided community' which is constantly 'moving goalposts'. It's just a discussion, and I think you see 100+ editors in agreement over candidates more often than you could get a random sample of 100 people to agree on, well, anything <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm now looking at getting that very table Kudpung. Might take me a little bit, there's a lot to go through (I'm currently at 106 essays and counting). As for whether RfA will be required, I think this should be used as a guideline to help prevent NOTNOWs... but lets see what the results are before we get too excited ;) <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Worm! That's a heck of a task - I had no idea that there really were that number of essays to go through! You have my unbounded admiration for taking this one on - not something that I would have wanted to tackle! Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've made a start User:Worm That Turned/RFA criteria. The metrics will be fairly easy to judge statistically, but I'm going to go through and have a look at the advice too (when I get time). That'll be the big task! Anyway, hopefully I'll have some stats for us by the end of today. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of those criteria lists are hopelessly out of date. While those of User:BryanG/RfA criteria (the first one I clicked on at random) may have been indicative of the state of play in 2006, I suspect they're of little use today. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 09:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and I made a note to that effect at the top of the page. I was planning to go through twice, once using all data, and once using only stuff that's been updated since Jan 2009 (from non banned users). I'm just worred that if we use the smaller sample, we won't get quite as representative view. I'm also tempted (when I get time... again) to go through the successful RfAs since 2010 (maybe 2009), and note down the edit count, tenure and mainspace percentage at the point of passing. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are only perhaps 20 or so  essays that  state clearly  defined criteria. There's no need to  go  trough  them all I  have, and that  why  I  have left  some notes  against  some of them that  are worth  reading. There is no  suggestion here that "What you expect 10,000 non-automated edits? WP:HOWTOVOTE says he only needs 5,000". If  one does what  I  suggested and makes a sortable table that  can caluclate the average criteria, it  will  most  probably come up  with  some surprisingly  acceptable results. Let's get the data before we jump  to  rash conclusions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been through about 50 so far, and about half have some form of clearly defined criteria. When I get through them all (I've started so I'll finish) I expect we'll have about 60 with numerical data. Take it back down to the ones in the past year or so, I think 20 is probably not far off, I'll get that metric up too. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Early stats are in. General thinking of the essays with metrics (about 50% have metrics) is that you need a minimum of 2500 edits and 6 months experience. NB that's based on opinions, not what actually happens, and includes out of date data. I'll be looking at real data and vetted opinions too. Also, note that about 1 in 6 essays looks for a clean block log and 1/3 requests no blocks in at least the last 6 months. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at this year, successful candidates had about 20-30k edits, had been around nearly 4 years and had been actively editing for nearly a year. Only 3 candidates passed with less than 6k edits, and only 5 with less than 10k. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, 2010 is different. Quite a few less than 10k there, including a couple around the 3000 mark. There is one successful at around 1000 edits, though he had over 1m cross wikis. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth factoring in automated edits in there, as it's something I've noticed brought up in RfA and on various peoples' RfA criteria... For instance, percentages from this year:


 * Sadads 58.40
 * DeltaQuad 25.02
 * Catfish Jim and the soapdish 	14.38
 * RHM22 0.00
 * Bahamut0013 6.38
 * Salvio giuliano 49.58
 * Feezo 9.23
 * Valfontis 7.18
 * Fæ 47.51
 * JaGa 40.41
 * Peridon 0.47
 * Gfoley4 41.16
 * Neelix Too many edits
 * Kudpung 17.28
 * Boing! said Zebedee 44.92
 * The Bushranger 3.50
 * ErrantX 9.18
 * Rami R 22.74
 * ErikHaugen 0.04
 * 5 albert square 71.85
 * Acdixon 0.00
 * Ponyo 0.01
 * Gonzonoir 15.07
 * Smartse 12.76
 * Gimme danger 0.00
 * Lear's Fool 53.30
 * Ironholds 30.87

(might be worth checking some of those zero values)<FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 14:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, unfortunately, it's regularly included on the talk page, meaning that the percentage we get is actually going to be based on their automated edits up to today. Might be signifcantly different from when they gained adminship. (or am I blind and are they there?) <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to get those figures using this tool as you can specify a date range. Makes it a bit more work though. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideal. I'll get on that tomorrow. :) <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations - this is excellent  work, and the kind of effort that  moves this project  positively  forward.  Wales has stated again  on  his tp  yesterday  that for proposals with far-reaching  board wide implications, data driven arguments are far  more important  than  emotional speculation. We  need to  get  this data into  sortable tabular form.


 * The issue of automatic edits raises interesting points. A candidate who  has made 50,000 edits all of which  are auto has not  demonstrated any  knowledge of content  or policy. Clicking away  at  Huggle at  4 pages a minute does not  prove anything, while Twinkle also  increases the edit  count  by  two for the price of one because it  includes not  only  the tag, but  the warning  placed on  he user's tp at  the same time. Manual  edits are the criteria to use,  and using a percentage may  not  be the best  metric.; 90:10 doesn't  look  good, but  at  90,000:10,000 is still a healthy  10,000 manual  edits,  whereas 9,000:1,000 would seriously  cause me to  consider opposing  a candidate for lack  of manual experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "The user should have at least X edits"

Well, the edit count roughly shows the experience in editing. But to have enough experience, you don`t need 10000 edits. Good behaviour, edits of good quality, enough experience(in the article and other namespaces of relevance), Knowledge of the rules, exspecially of Copyrights and Neutral point of view, and no indication of possible power abuse; that is what you should look for if someone wants to be an adminstrator.--Müdigkeit (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

''Note: Thread copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC) ''

Just a comment
As I have mentioned in previous discussions. I would prefer to see a continued unbundling of the various permissions that one gets as an admin. As I have stated before, most admins usually only work in specific comfort areas (files, RFA's, blocks, vandalism, etc). Very few actually do all of them so IMO very few need the actuall admin role anyway. I also think that there are some tasks that admins do that probably shouldn't be automatically granted regardless of the number of edits a person performs. This also gives the editor a chance to get to know and use each of the option groups at a time. Then once they have established themselves they can use some of them they should be granted the admin role, perhaps as an expedited process.

Another important note. I think we should establish some sort of guideline as to "acceptable comments". When people submit for RFA most don't expect for everyone to vote for them but some comments are just unnecessary opposes that shouldn't count anyway. For example, folks who oppose on the grounds the editor was self nominating, that the editor was too young, that the editor made a minor mistake more than say 6 months in the past (im not talking blatant vandalism but an accidental post). These are just some examples of what I would consider an invalid oppose. We shouldn't oppose because of Age or because its a self nom and lets face it weve all made mistakes so as long as its not a major violation in the recent time then its not a relavant issue to oppose for. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am totally in support of (eventually) unbundling more and more of the tools; also in support of the idea that Adminship could (should?) be more of a gradual process, with 'apprentice admins' getting mentoring / training in the use of each aspect as and when needed. As for comments, anything that is clearly in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL should be struck - along with its !vote, and that !voters violating those policies should have 'voting rights' suspended.  If people realised that any !vote accompanied by incivility, attack, or snark would be struck out, they might well rein themselves in just to ensure that their !vote counted. And, yes, 'ancient sins' should never be used against someone who has clearly got over that particular personal glitch, and, yes, ageism on its own should never be used.  There are some really clueful youngsters out there.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is forbidden here, nonconstructive, to have any thoughts about the administrator system itself. Please self censor the above remarks by striking them. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) I have self-censored my own comment by striking it. I have also struck this added comment. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ageism is exlicitly considered an acceptable oppose at the moment. For the most part, the arguments for ageism are well-founded, even though I strongly feel the arguments against are stronger. Furthermore, a lot of people are very passionate about it. I would caution against bringing ageism into RfA reform, not least because it's an issue that affects other areas, such as checkuser, oversight and Arbcom. —WFC— 05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the idea of unbundling certain administrative tools, much in the way that was accomplished with rollback. Interesting proposal. <font face="Bradley Hand ITC" size="2px" color="green">Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 05:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Great in theory, but which tools would you have unbundled? I'm not convinced by the assertion that a majority of active admins only use a very limited number tools... is there any concrete evidence of this? (For the record, I pretty much use all of the tools at present other than design and granting users rights) <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 09:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I use all the tools - not  a lot perhaps, but  I  do  use them. One irrelevant  kind  of vote that  Kumioko fails to  mention, are the ones where !voters oppose  because the nominator has on his/her user page an admission  to  belonging  or not  belonging  to  certain  races, creeds, or politik. Ancient  sins should not  be used in  evidence to  oppose a candidate, but  they  are, especially  ones even more than a year old, and just  as often by  admins who  vote at  RfA - this is just  one of several  new rules that  this project  ought  to  be discussing. Unbundling  the tools, but that  is not  on  this projects's agenda. What  is on the agenda, is anything  that  will abolish the hate, vindictiveness, and general drama, that  has become commonplace at  RfA, and with an impunity  that  is not  granted to  users  on  other discussion pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sort of (considerable self-censorship used) conduct could easily be elimated, if just one of the dozens of admins that sees that user behave that way on a weekly basis (and to my knowledge it is just one) says in no uncertain terms "do this again and I will block you for disruptive behavior." —WFC— 10:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While we have the technical ability to do that, we don't have the mandate. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 11:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More accurately, "you" (responding to what you refer to as "we") lack the convinction to follow it through. Which is incredible, given how common it is for generally good faith contributors who unquestionably step over the line to receive blocks. Admins, just like everybody else, have a mandate to take extraordinary action, where it can be proven that it is in the interests of the project. Individual RfAs can get heated, and admins are rightly wary about taking action in those circumstances. But where someone makes it their business to stress out/disrupt/provoke controversy for controversy's sake at every RfA, you unquestionably have a mandate to do something. Warn first by all means, but the mandate to go further if circumstances dictate is there. —WFC— 04:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IAR doesn't give us the all clear to issue 4im level warnings to editors for being annoying. I believe, as do a number of other people, that the editor in question was way out of order in the above example, but nobody appears to have issued a warning over the comments at Drmies' RfA. You don't have to wait for an admin to do that. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT>  09:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Striking as the more I look into this, the more I'm of the opinion that this user's editing pattern and history do constitute serious disruption. This for example is entirely out of order. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT>  <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT>  11:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

An example of a proposal to unbundle tools for a particular purpose is outlined here. It failed of course, mostly down to misunderstandings and baseless fears of rogueness. I still believe that if tools are to be unbundled, it should not just be individually, but rather done to fulfil a particular task, such as fighting vandalism - which it's impossible to get adminship with nowadays. AD 22:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest way to accomplish reformation
I realize this has already been mentioned multiple times on this discussion page and elsewhere, but: it ought to be as easy to remove adminship as it is to grant it. The simple fact that it isn't is largely what generates such unnecessary and arbitary criteria. The community is afraid of giving out the tools - they really are. No one really wants to offer their support of someone utilizing power that cannot be stopped without difficulty, that is, unless it can be proven there is almost no chance of them abusing it. The flaw in this is the reason so many candidates are turned away by so many RfA participants simply for not racking up 10,000 edits or having created an A-class article. <font face="Bradley Hand ITC" size="2px" color="green">Kinaro (talk)'''(contribs) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is substantially outside of the aims of this project, but I honestly think it would be disasterous to lower the bar from where it is right now.


 * Personally, I'm not attracted by the concept of using edit counts to judge an editor's familiarity with Wikipedia policy, but it provides one indication of experience when it is coupled with length of tenure and proportion of automatic edits. The real test is the RfA process, but we want to prevent people who don't have a real chance from subjecting themselves to it... it can be unpleasant and people often leave Wikipedia for good, when they would have made a decent admin had they waited until they were ready. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"...it ought to be as easy to remove adminship as it is to grant it" - since when was it easy to grant adminship? It is incredibly difficult. AD 22:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a limit to  the scope of this RfA reform project and the number of items its task  force can cope with, and desysoping  is not  one of them. As  our main  objectives are to  abolish  drama at  RfA  and thus get  more candidates of the right  calibre to  come forward, and to reduce the number of guaranteed failures, I'll  suggest  again  with  all  due respects that  dysysoping  should be discussed elsewhere.


 * That said, I  have never seen any  data driven arguments that  desysoping  is either in  the minds of the candidates or the voters at  the time of an RfA. It  certainly  was not  in  mine at  my  RfA because I  really  don't  care one way  or another; as an admin, I  have confidence in  myself that  I  will  not, except  for a genuine slip of a mouse, abuse the tools, and as a voter at  RfA I am  looking  for competency  and immediate net  positive returns for granting  the mop - we do not  live in  a society  where we treat  every  individual  as a potential  criminal, and when I  recruit  staff  I  certainly do  not  say  to  my colleagues  "This guy  is good -  how can we get  rid of him if he messes up?" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the real world, if someone does something sackable, you sack them, making sure you can defend yourself at a subsequent tribunal if necessary. RfA is what it is for a reason. If we're not ready to face up to those reasons, then all of this work will result in at best token change, at worst a system even more combative and broken than what we currently have. —WFC— 06:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the real world you avoid putting yourself in a situation in which you have to sack people by having an intelligent selection procedure and only employing those who show the qualities required to perform a job. But to extend that analogy further, you list the qualities you're looking for in a candidate when you advertise the position, you invite people to apply for it and you only invite those who are likely to perform well to the interview.
 * You would not hold interviews for a position that requires a university degree and some real world experience then allow a high-school leaver to turn up for it, then have more than a hundred interviewers beat them up over the course of a week. Likewise, you don't just give them a job then take it away when they inevitably get it wrong. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RfA reform needs to be about RfA reform. We cannot afford to digress into desysop discussions. I can understand the point of view that it ought to be as easy to remove adminship as it is to grant it., but it is beyond the remit of the project. It's difficult enough to make any change at RfA without expanding the scope of this project <font color="#000">WormTT (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reopened. The above comment is an example of why RfA has become what it has become. Everyone wants it to change, but change can only come by addressing the issues that have led us down this road. The inconvenient truth is that the permanent nature of adminship is very high on the list of reasons for the battleground mentality. I'm a pragmatist; I accept that simultaenously implementing reform and de-adminship will prove impossible. Nonetheless, we cannot achieve reform without tackling the big issues head on. If we try to do so, we will be changing the nature of the beast, rather than slaying it. —WFC— 09:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that closure. Length of admin tenure and desyoping  are not  within the remit of this project. The main  goals of this project  are to  abolish  the incivility  and irrelevant/inappropriate !voting  and commenting  at  RfA with  a view to  encouraging  established users to  run  for office, but who  won't  until  something is changed. Wikipedia proposals are less likely  to  succeed if too  many  issue are treated at  once. However, there is nothing  preventing  users from  starting a project  or an RfC on  those other issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I know what you're saying WFC, but the purpose of this project is to "reform of the admin selection process", to wit stopping failed candidates (good editors) leaving the project. This appears to be due to civility issues, pile on issues, gauntlet issues, irrelevent questions and so on.
 * There is a school of thought that changing adminship as a whole will take care of these issues. This might be by a simple de-sysop procedure, unbundling, reconfirmation or a definite adminship period. I don't disagree with that school of thought, but if we try and tackle everything we will overstrech ourselves and nothing will happen. Whilst I won't revert you on the closure, I still believe it is necessary to keep focus on what we are trying to reform. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. As I said, I pragmatically accept that we can't bundle desysopping and RfA reform. I think it's a big mistake, but nonetheless fully accept that. But it's naive to assume that we can implement reform without actively considering the future of adminship. For as long as adminship is (nigh on) irrevocable, the intensity with which people express concern at RfA is unlikely to change, however radically the technical procedure in which they do so is altered. (EDIT: intensity is a bad word. What I'm trying to communicate is that people will feel equally strongly about whether or not an individual should have the tools) When we implement reform, we need to consider how it is going to change the behavior of opposers in that boat, if at all. —WFC— 17:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidate statistics
Candidates' statistics based on length  of active membership and edit  counts have now been posted to RfA reform 2011/Candidates. This data should lead to determining whether or not  minimum criteria should be introduced for candidates, and if so, what  they  should be. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting statistics
Additional imprtant voting statistics have now been added to  the page at  WP:RFA2011/VOTING. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)