User:Leifern/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 agree. Those who want to be administrators should be familiar enough with these processes to be comfortable putting themselves through them. This is probably a selection bias we want.

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 think the biggest problem is that the community's standards aren't necessarily congruent with the "minimum standards." In other words, editors vote on RFAs based on their own subjective criteria, which sometimes run counter to the WP policies, especially around NPOV.

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: Nominations should count as one vote. If people are being guided by endorsements, they can look at who voted what.

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 questions are fine; my larger concern is that prospective admins learn what the "right" answers are and stick to those.

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: I would actually prefer a test prospective admins should complete, either as a self-diagnostic tool or even an exam. We have a right to ask that admins are familiar with the extent and nuance of policies and guidelines, not to mention the difference between the two. In addition, I think prospective admins should be given some latitude in explaining controversial actions as editors, and "I lost my temper" is a reasonable explanation, especially for prolific editors.

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: I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, too many admins are self-righteous bozos who don't seem to understand the difference between their roles as editors and as admins; on the other hand, the bozo tendencies also get free rein when well-meaning, well-qualified, but imperfect editors decide to run the gauntlet to become admins. I don't have an easy answer, but perhaps the protocol for asking and voting should be separate. For example, people can challenge RFAs by asking questions, but when voting have to cite specific concerns raised during the questions. Ad hominems, vague, or irrelevant objections should be discarded.

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: Or a third: an election panel that hears and decides RFAs. I would prefer that we make it a bit easier to become an admin, but also make it a bit easier to desysop admins for a shorter or longer period of time.

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: I think bureaucrats should rely heavily on precedence in making decisions like these. Their own discretion is not acceptable, but neither should they be held up to endless scrutiny and debate.

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: I have mixed feelings about this. Some of the most valuable RFA votes come from people with no involvement with the candidate who take the trouble of reading everything the supporters/detractors have to say. Perhaps there should be a requirement that if you canvas someone known to the candidate, you have to canvas someone else with over 500 edits the last month that has no dealings with the candidate. Sort of a matching program.

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 that candidates have to demonstrate 1) knowledge and understanding of policy, guidelines, and procedure; 2) a commitment to upholding these and civility in general; and 3) a personal philosophy that's congruent with Wikipedia's goals. Whatever furthers those.

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: I prefer coaching and mentoring afterwards; but my biggest concern is that a few of the most active and pompous admins are bad rather than good examples of what it means to be an effective admin.

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 think that abusing admin privileges - directly or indirectly - is an offense at an entirely different level than 3RRs, momentary lapses of civility, or other annoying/disruptive editor behavior. I am willing to accept that admins lose their cool, and we should forgive that if they recognize their lapse; but I think the threshold for sanctions when dealing with admins using their admin privileges should be much lower, not much higher than for mere mortal 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: I would say, keep it simple. If three uninvolved, otherwise impartial admins/bureaucrats are convinced that abuse has happened, an automatic 24-hour block. If there's a repeat within one week, a seven day block. Etc. If admins think it's ok to kick editors off Wikipedia for a longer or shorter period of time, then they have to live with it, too.

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: Abuse is a concern, but it's best countered by finding three uninvolved admins to adjudicate. These could be picked at random, or maybe each admin has to list other admins they feel are biased one way or another.

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 don't think a reconfirmation is necessary. Admins who do a good job and remain active should be able to stand on their own merits. Another matter is that they should be able to withdraw and have a simplified way to get back in.

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: I think the biggest problem is that an intrepid editor who gets involved in controversial issues pretty much damns himself/herself to never becoming an admin. Conversely, there will be stealth editors who do nothing controversial precisely to make it easier to become an admin. I think we have to recognize that we will sometimes disagree with fellow editors without disrespecting them. I would pick an intellectually honest editor with whom I disagree often as an admin far more often than one who is agreeable to a sloppy thinker.

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: I think the focus should be on admin duties, and we need to recognize that there are excellent editors who would be unhappy or ineffective as admins. It's much harder to account for so-so editors who would make excellent admins. But perhaps some pointers to less editorial tasks might help. For example, mediation, helping newbies, etc.

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 19:57 on 29 September 2008.