User:Mattinbgn/RfA review

Welcome to the Question phase of RfA Review. We hope you'll take the time to respond to your questions in order to give us further understanding of what you think of the RfA process. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers here. Also, feel free to answer as many questions as you like. Don't feel you have to tackle everything if you don't want to.

In a departure from the normal support and oppose responses, this review will focus on your thoughts, opinions and concerns. Where possible, you are encouraged to provide examples, references, diffs and so on in order to support your viewpoint. Please note that at this point we are not asking you to recommend possible remedies or solutions for any problems you describe, as that will come later in the review.

If you prefer, you can submit your responses anonymously by emailing them to gazimoff (at) o2.co.uk. Anonymous responses will be posted as subpages and linked to from the responses section, but will have the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the talk page.

Once you've provided your responses, please encourage other editors to take part in the review. 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

When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)

   The process should remain open to all editors, invited or not.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   If those that take place in the process find it useful, then there is no reason to abolish it. Personally, I find what I have seen of it, leads me to believe it is relatively harmless but rather pointless. Being an administrator is not about possessing a skill set, rather it is about having the trust of the community.

3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)

   All candidates should be self-nominations. The process of nomination and co-nomination is superfluous under the current process. If editors want to support a nomination they can support it the same as any other editor. The idea that one acquires some sort of "mana" through the number of administrators they have successfully nominated leads to the pushing of inappropriate candidates and over-defensive responses to legitimate criticism. As for the notion that self-nominations are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", there is little that can be said about such bad faith and plain incorrect drivel.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   WP:CANVASS is a blight on the encyclopedia in general, used in the main to stifle debate. While RfA is for all intents and purposes an election, candidates should be allowed to seek asupport for election. Otherwise, appointment of administrators remains largely in the hands of those that watchlist the RfA page. Many of us cant be bothered to do so and only vote' (calling it a !vote is sophistry) for those candidates that one has had some interaction. Note that canvassing is just as likely to lead to others joining the debate against the candidate rather than support it. Let's trust the bureaucrats to ascertain a candidate's strength on their merits rather than counting votes.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   The debate at RfA generates more heat than light and in my experience never leads towards consensus but rather entrenches already held positions and prejudices. It also gives editors to derail the process by using it as a forum for other topics such as campaigning against WP:N or dragging up old grievances. Questions should be vetted before presentation to the candidate to sort for relevance to the topic at hand; i.e. How would the candidate use the admin tools. If I was a candidate now, I would be tempted to reply to most of the questions asked by stating simply "not relevant".

6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

   See above. The process as it stands is an election and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. At the moment we all pretend it is not an election, while we all treat it as one. It takes the worst features from a vote and the worst processes from a debate and rolls them up into a single dysfunctional package.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   A candidate should be able to withdraw at any time as they see fit

8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)

   It doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to count votes. At present the bureaucrat needs to count (valid) votes, assess against the current standard and then annouce a result. Pre-vetting of candidates by bureaucrats would prevent NOTNOW closes

9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)

   Much more useful than pre-Admin coaching as a guide to actually using the tools rather than assessing the need for their use; i.e. how does one actually close an AfD, block an IP etc.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    While I don't doubt the good intentions of the promoters of the AOR process, it is deeply and fundamentally flawed and more likely to harm than improve the encyclopedia. Those administrators who would respect the AOR process would be likely to voluntarily stand down if they lost the support of the community in any case, while those who would fight to retain the role merely shift the AOR goalposts. It allows less trustworthy administrators to use the respect and reputation of trustworthy administrators as a shield to deflect criticism and acts as a false assurance to voters at RfA.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. How do you view the role of an administrator?

   Quite simply, an administrator is an editor who is trusted with the power to delete and restore articles, block and unblock editors and protect and unprotect content. It is not a promotion, a favoured class, a reward for loyal service or an entitlement. Being an administrator is nothing special.

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

   • An understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and an ability to explain these to others
   • A civil and polite manner when dealing with others but able to be firm when needed.
   • An awareness of one's own capacity for error.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?

   Yes. My experience has been reasonably uneventful.

2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?

   Yes. I was supported without any opposing votes. There was a minor issue relating to some votes prior to transclusion, but was otherwise uneventful

3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?

   RfA as it is, is dysfunctional and needs reform. One option is to acknowledge that this is an election and treat it as one. This works elsewhere and WP:VOTE applies more to articles and content than meta processes such as RfA. However, Wikipedia has probably reaches a size where participatory democracy needs to be replaced by representative democracy. A better option is to treat the process more like a WP:RfC. My proposed process would go something like this:

   • A prospective candidate would have their candidature pre-vetted by a bureaucrat, with only those with some chance of success being listed. A presumption in favour of listing would apply and listing does not necessarily mean that the nomination is supported by a bureaucrat.
   • Following listing, comment would be open to all for a period of time (perhaps 5 days). Comments would need to be evidence-based; motherhood statements of support or unsupported claims against the candidate would be removed by clerks. If late comments arrive, the bureaucrats would have the discretion to extend discussion, in the name of fairness to the candidate.
   • The bureaucrats would then assess the candidate, based on the edit history and log of the editor in question but taking into account points raised in discussion. Once again, the presumption should go in favour of the candidate. To be made an admin a candidate would require a super-majority of bureaucrats in support (say 70%).
   • As the bureaucrats have given the tools based on their judgement, they would be entitled to remove the tools using their judgement.

   Having said all this, a even better model would see bureaucrats appoint and remove sysops as they see fit, using their best judgement. Bureaucrats would then be accountable for the actions of the admins they have appointed. This would remove all the process that has accumulated and hopefully remove some of the perceived glamour behind becoming an admin. It works well enough for rollback, there is no reason why it couldn;t work for admin status. It is, however, unlikely to gain support.

Once you're finished...

Thank you again for taking part in this review of the Request for Adminship process. Now that you've completed the questionnaire, don't forget to add the following line of code to the bottom of the Response page by clicking this link and copying the following to the BOTTOM of the list.

* [[User:Mattinbgn/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 02:44 on 22 June 2008.