User:Wanderer57/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: ... I don't think this is a real issue. Editing Wikipedia IS complicated. I have edited for a year and I know there are many things I don't know. I'm sure that being an admin is no simpler than being an editor. If a "candidate for adminship" can't comprehend the application process, they are going to be in well over their head if they are made an admin.

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 don't see a problem with setting minimum requirements. In fact, I think there is an advantage. Establish minimum requirements to APPLY for adminship, not minimum requirements to be ACCEPTED as an admin. IMO this reduces the likelihood of "discouragement". I.e., the prospective admin without a reasonable level of experience is told "you are not yet ready to apply", rather than going through the application process and then being told "you are rejected".

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: ... Two or three nominators is plenty. "Strong support" conveys the same idea as nomination, just without the sense of drama. A nomination from someone who a) has a strong track record (whatever that means) and b) has extensive knowledge of the prospective admin carries much more weight IMO than multiple "run-of-the-mill" nominations.

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: ... I think the number of questions sometimes gets absurd. Maybe create a "pool" of questions that have been asked in the past, throw out the more far-fetched ones, and then for each candidate draw 10 questions at random and ask those. Something like that.

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: ... The pool idea might help here. As long as anybody is free to ask any question, the problems raised in B1 and B2 are unavoidable. There might be some "standard" questions that would be asked, based on the applicant's editing record. E.g., if they have been blocked, ask for an explanation. If they have edited mostly on Talk pages, not in articles, ask for an explanation. If they have edited in articles but not used Talk pages, ask for an explanation. If they have been running a bot and have a large number of technical corrections on their record, but not much else, ask how the bot work qualifies them to act as an admin. (nothing against bot work - it is very valuable - but I wonder if it provides experience relevant to being an admin.)

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: ... Badgering of opposes is uncivil and unproductive. I personally hate to see it. I suggest that there be no questioning of opposers or supporters.

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: ... When I read the RFA pages (which I do less and less), a simple "support" or "oppose" with no reason carries little weight IMO. A support or oppose "per Freddie" carries only slightly more. Perhaps there could be a programmed mechanism whereby a "support per Freddie" (or "oppose per Sally") "vote" is not listed as a separate item, but is merged.) An example of what I have in mind follows.

Instead of this:

• Support because he is a great guy - editor A
• Oppose because he is a royal pain to edit with - editor B
• Support per editor A - editor C
• Support per editor A - editor D
• Oppose per editor B - editor E
• Oppose per editor B - editor F
• Support per editor A - editor G
• Oppose per editor B - editor H
• Oppose per editor B - editor I
• Oppose per editor B - editor J
• Support per editor A - editor K

we would see:

• Support because he is a great guy - editor A [endorsed by editor C, editor D, editor G, editor K]
• Oppose because he is a royal pain to edit with - editor B [endorsed by editor E, editor F, editor H, editor I, editor J]

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: ... To answer the last question, Yes. All votes are not created equal. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit is not the same as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit well, or the encyclopedia that anyone can manage.

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: ... For example, if I were to put my name forward to become an admin (which I'm not doing), there are only a comparative handful of articles, talk pages, policy pages in which I have done enough editing that other editors and admins involved there might remember my name. If I were not permitted to "advertise" my candidacy in those places, the RFA would be totally (or almost totally) determined by editors and admins unfamiliar with what I have done. I would prefer to take my chances with the people who know what I have done. One way to accomplish this "advertisement" would be to allow me to post a neutral statement on the relevant talk pages: "Editor Wanderer57 is a candidate to become a Wikipedia administrator. Support or opposition to this candidacy can be registered at "appropriate link". ........ A more neutral and perhaps completely automated approach would be to use a bot to place such a notice on every page on which I had made more than a predetermined number of edits.

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 have no experience that would allow me to answer this or the next question.

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 complementary? Are there common themes or elements that could be shared between the two processes, in order to improve the effectiveness of both?

• Response: ...

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: ... I have little or no experience that would allow me to answer the questions in this section. In general I would say that a high standard is, and should be, required of administrators. For many editors, administrators are the only level of the "organization" (if I can call it that) with whom they deal, aside from other editors.

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: ...

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: ...

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: ...

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: ... IMO being "trusted" means having behaved for a sufficient period of time in a trustworthy and confidence inspiring manner. As I implied in my reply to B6 above, in most cases the prior editing work of a candidate for adminship will be known to only a handful of other editors and admins. The opinions of that comparative handful are far more important than those of the other editors and admins who comment on the RFA page. We might define the "proximity" of two editors in terms of the extent to which they have edited the same articles at the same time. Is there some way to capture this "proximity"?

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: ... Any notion that an editor is a second-class administrator, or that becoming an administrator is a logical next step from being an editor, is absurd, IMHO. The skills involved are very different, for one thing. The idea that one can "qualify" to become an admin by editing should be discouraged. Perhaps more emphasis in the RFA process should be placed on the editor's activities which show some experience and understanding of issues an admin needs to understand, (and less emphasis on total editing experience.)

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 21:15 on 25 September 2008.