User:Logical Premise/RfA Review Recommend Phase

Welcome to the Recommendation phase of RfA Review. In this phase, you will be asked to offer suggestions and proposals to address specific concerns and problems with the current Requests for Adminship process.

The questions below are taken directly from the 209 responses from the Question phase, each of which offered editors' thoughts and concerns about RfA. Based on those concerns, we identified the most frequently mentioned problems and included them here. These are the elements of RfA that are currently under review.

Please take your time and read through the concerns below. For each item, you are invited to offer a proposal that addresses the concern. Where possible, you are encouraged to provide examples, references, diffs and so on in order to support your viewpoint. There isn't a limit on the scope of your proposals; the sky is the limit, here. The intent of this phase is to get ideas, not necessarily to write policy - recommendations that gain traction and community support will be refined during later phases.

Most importantly, Answer as few or as many questions as you wish. All responses are evaluated, so any information you provide is helpful.

If you prefer, you can submit your responses anonymously by emailing them to User:Ultraexactzz. Anonymous responses will be posted as subpages with the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:RfA Review.

Once you've provided your responses, please encourage other editors to take part in the review. We stress that editors who didn't participate in the question phase are encouraged to participate now - more responses will improve the quality of research, as well as increasing the likelihood of producing meaningful results.

Once again, thank you for taking part!

Questions

Selection and Nomination

A1. Editors note that the RfA process can be daunting to prospective administrators, and that the process itself may discourage otherwise qualified candidates from seeking adminship. How can this "Selection Bias" be countered?

• Response: The first thing that must be admitted is that having the process be "daunting" probably removes administrators who are unlikely to be bold. We want bold administrators. That being said, the simplest way to do it is very simply to make the RfA process incorporate RfA coaching and an extended period of preparation. This long period of preparation will go over many of the dauntin aspects for qualified editors and show unqualified editors where they need to focus their efforts. Only after they have completed this admin prep process should they be able to file an RfA. Additionally, the current method of sniping an entire user's editing history for mistakes and bringing them up to hit him or her over the head with should be discouraged. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A2. Editors expressed concern over unprepared or unqualified candidates at RfA, noting that their candidacies result in NOTNOW and SNOW closures that can be discouraging. In lieu of minimum requirements for adminship, how can prospective candidates be educated about RfA and the community's expectations of its administrators?

• Response: I have a difficulty with the rejection of minimum requirements. The concept that "adminship is not a big deal" is very simply a patent lie and should be discontinued, and along with that mindset the idea that there are no minimum recommended requirements for adminship. If the community refuses to set such, then how can you suggest that people are unqualified or unprepared? Very clearly there is a minimum standard the community will accept for a promotion to admin, why not simply lay out guidelines somewhat higher than this as an informal guide. The community would NOT use these to determine a prospective editor's RfA (opposing on the basis of these limits would be discouraged and votes discounted) but it would give people a clear baseline from which to operate. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is not feasable, then the only other possible option is to require all RfA's to have a nominator in good standing, preferably an administrator, or to have at least 3 co-noms in good standing. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A3. 44 editors expressed concern over excessive co-nominations. Some of these editors advocated a limit on co-nominations, perhaps capping them at one or two per candidate; others recommended asking prospective co-nominators to post a Strong Support in lieu of an actual nomination statement. How can the concern over Co-nominations be addressed?

• Response: Why are people concerned about this? What exactly does it matter? Again, with all the problems involved in RfA, why is this an issue of importance? Cap at three, but realize that strong nominator support from established editors only shows that the canidate is more likely ready for the keys.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The RfA Debate (Questions, Election, Canvassing)

B1. 60 editors expressed concern over the number of questions asked of candidates, and indicated that questions should be limited in number. How can this be accomplished? What limits could be fairly imposed? Are there alternative means for the candidate to provide information about themselves without the prompting of questions?

• Response: Have a selection of question templates drawn up. Each RfA would automatically pull questions from this pile. They can be categorized by certain qualities , i.e., IAR questions, block questions, etc. This would allow a hard limit of questions and eliminate too many questions being hurled at a candidate. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

B2. Editors expressed concern over the content of questions, with 43 editors disapproving of "Trick questions", 8 disapproving of questions that require only a quotation from policy to answer, and 54 favoring questions that relate directly to the candidate and their experiences, contributions, conflicts, etc. How should the scope of possible questions be determined? Conversely, how would the decision to remove bad-faith or problematic questions be made, and by whom? What subjects should be specifically off-limits, and why?

• Response: Again, see B1. If you had a standard pool of questions that were the only source questions could be drawn from, consensus could decide if a particular question had merit or not. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

B3. Editors note that RfA is seen as a negative process, with issues such as badgering of opposes, personal attacks, and a general lack of civility being prominent concerns. How can the RfA process be changed to address these concerns?

• Response: *sigh* People waste more time on being "civil" than they do on fixing the encyclopedia, sadly. As I don't particularly care about civility, I don't see the issue as being relevant. If people are so upset by civility, then simply render RfA a straight vote with nothing else but support/oppose, or make a rule that votes CANNOT be responded to. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

B4. The very nature of the RfA process was disputed. Some editors desire rationales with every vote, and favor a more discussion and consensus-based process similar to other processes on the English wikipedia. Other editors desire a more vote-based election, where the raw numbers of supports and opposes are the critical factor. Is there one of these methods that would provide a clearer consensus on the community's view of a candidate? Or, alternatively, is a hybrid of the two preferable, and how should that be structured?

• Response: Any election element that works off of consensus is going to be problematic. RfA should be a straight vote, period, plain, and simple. I do not want someone trying to "interpret" my vote or if it's somehow "valid". I'm an editor in good standing, and I should have a say in who can and cannot have executive oversight of the project along with every other editor. To remove that by having someone decide "consensus" is for X outcome, when the opposite is what people are saying, is the fundamental nature of most controversies in WP today, and expanding that to RfA will simply destroy RfA. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

B5. The amount of discretion held by Bureaucrats to remove or discount problem votes was also discussed, with some editors favoring increased discretion for Bureaucrats. 25 editors also favored a detailed closing rationale from Bureaucrats, detailing the specific factors that resulted in the candidate being successful (or not successful). What changes to the RfA process or format could clarify community consensus on this issue? Should Bureaucrats take a more active role in managing (or clerking) ongoing RfAs?

• Response: ONLY votes from banned users, IP addresses without a logged in account, or BLATANTLY non-wiki reason votes should be struck. If I oppose John User because he has blond hair, that's not valid. If I oppose him because he has too many user page edits, that' a wiki reason and should be counted. You do *NOT* get to decide how to value my opinion. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

B6. 68 editors noted that a limited form of Canvassing or advertising would be acceptable, if such canvassing was done on-site and in a neutral fashion. How could a candidate advertise the fact that he or she is a candidate for adminship, while being completely neutral in the audience to which he or she advertises?

• Response: Canvassing , if automated and handled by the MediaWiki software and not people, is fine. An automated notice of RfA canidates each week to people's talk pages is also fine. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Training and Education

C1. Though 73 editors responded favorably to the Admin Coaching programme, 39 were critical of the process for "Teaching for the test", or for being an RfA preparation programme rather than an Adminship preparation programme. In what ways could Admin Coaching be improved to focus more on adminship itself?

• Response: I think AC is doing a fine job, and it should be EXPANDED to include an RfA prep program , as to eliminate people who panic at questions when they would make fine admins. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

C2. In evaluating New Admin School, some editors noted that a Mentorship element would be of great benefit to newly minted administrators - something that Admin Coaching provides in a direct one-on-one coach-coachee team. Similarly, 15 editors characterized Admin Coaching, a primarily pre-adminship process, as being invaluable after the RfA, which is traditionally when New Admin School is used for training. Are there areas where the two processes overlap, and can be made more complimentary? Are there common themes or elements that could be shared between the two processes, in order to improve the effectiveness of both?

• Response: All admins should be mentored by a more senior Admin for a period of a month or so. If there's overlap, programs can work together. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminship (Removal of)

D1. Editors noted that the current voluntary Admins open to Recall process is redundant to Dispute Resolution process such as Requests for Comment and Arbitration. In the absence of Recall (i.e. if it were removed altogether), how could existing processes be adapted to more effectively deal with issues of administrator abuse?

• Response: Dispute resolution is, always was, always has been and always will be a complete goddamned waste of time. Admins who violate the rules should very simply be stripped of their adminship. The whole reason that the Open to Recall issue came up is that DR was not working and valuable contributors were lost. If you want to fix it you need to actually punish and de-sysop admins who have broken the rules and/or made problematic actions. Far, far too many Arbcoms have at least one admin who has screwed something up and gotten off the hook because they are "valued contributors", and THIS is why we have Open to Recall now. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

D2. Editors cited the voluntary nature of the Admins open to Recall process as problematic, and 40 went as far as to recommend a mandatory process for all administrators, either as a mandatory form of Admins open to Recall, or a more formal version of the process administered by Bureaucrats. As a separate process from WP:DR, how could the current recall process be standardized for use as a mandatory process? Who would be responsible for such a process?

• Response: First of all it would only be open to established users. It would require at least FIFTEEN users to trigger. Once trigger, it would automatically set up a "Request for Recall" with evidence presented and a !vote taken. Three bcrats would judge the evidence and take action at that point. The use of Request for Recall would be considered an implicit expression of good faith. Editors who call for one should be prepared for Arbitration if the recall is judged by the bcrats to be in bad faith. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

D3. 44 editors criticized the recall process for being too open to abuse, both through spurious or bad-faith calls for an admin to be recalled, or through administrators who fail to follow through on a commitment to stand for recall. How can the recall process be amended to address these concerns?

• Response: Bcrats who find a bad-faith or abusive nomination should block the editor for one week the first time. A second spurious Request should trigger an indef hard ban. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

D4. Some editors recommended that administrators be required to stand for some form of reconfirmation after a given period of time. How would such reconfirmation be structured? How long would an admin have before such reconfirmation would be required? Could such reconfirmation be triggered by an effort to recall an admin, and how would that be handled? What form would such reconfirmation take (RfA, Straw Poll, etc)?

• Response: I would like to see admins be grouped in tranches and have to run for autoreconfirmation. A simple vote with a 60% pass requirement would be all that was needed, failures would automatically trigger a new RfA. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall Process

E1. The earliest version of the RfA policy states that adminship is granted to "anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." Current policy leaves the definition of a "trusted editor" to the community. Editors offered a wide range of basic characteristics desirable of administrators, including Trustworthiness, competence, and communication skills. How could the RfA process be amended to either A) more fully ensure that editors selected as admins do indeed have the full trust of the community, or B) more fully fit the community's expectations for administrators?

• Response: Draw up a full, formal and detailed list of requirements instead of this noise about no minimum requirements. Included in the requirements would be edit count, edit percentage by project space, types of edits, participiation in X process, etc. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

E2. Editors expressed concern over the format of the Requests for Adminship process. Some suggested that RfA has become a form of high-impact editor review, while others expressed concern over the view of Adminship itself as a goal or "trophy" that all editors should attain after a certain period of time. In taking the RfA process as a whole, what elements work well? What elements should be removed or amended?

• Response: The main element that needs to be removed is the utterly farcical idea that adminship is not a big deal. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 22:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Once you're finished...

Thank you again for taking part in this review of the Request for Adminship process.

Your responses will be added to Category:Wikipedian Recommendations to RfA Review, which will be used to review the responses after this phase is concluded.

Footnote

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 21:56 on 22 September 2008.