User:Richardcavell/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: Some admin-worthy editors go unnoticed for the same reasons that most editors go unnoticed. Wikipedia editors do not make physical contact with each other, usually use nicknames or IP addresses instead of their real names, are free to change those names, and so on.

• I do not believe that there is an emergent need for more administrators. I do not believe that there is any common characteristic among those who go unnoticed, which would result in discrimination against those with that characteristic. So the fact that fewer than all potential admin candidates are selected via the current process does not in fact harm wikipedia in any way.

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: Policies should be updated to allow or mandate immediate SNOW closures, by any admin or bureaucrat, so that candidates who do not have a snowball's chance do not go through the discouraging process at all. Immediately following this closure, a template could be placed on the candidate's talk page.

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: It is the co-nominators who create the problem, rather than the nominee. The nominee should not be penalised for the enthusiasm of a prospective co-nominator. Since a nomination is necessary and sufficient for a nominee to be nominated, I don't see what positive effect a co-nomination can be thought to have upon the quality of the nomination. A strong support statement would have the same effect. I would ban or deprecate co-nominations entirely.

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 that any editor ought to have the chance to ask bona fide questions of the candidate. Whether the candidate chooses to answer them is up to the candidate. I do not believe there ought to be a restricted list of 'standard questions'.

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: Most policy-related questions are pointless. I believe that any admin candidate ought to have the right to say "I don't know" in response to any such question, since no one person knows all there is to know about wikipedia, and many admins habitually limit their involvement to certain areas. I don't believe that an admin ought to be required to know the answers to all policy questions, or that an admin ought to be required to know policies outside their usual area of participation.

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: !Voters will generally take those issues into account. Generally, I have faith in the process. Candidates who deserve to be given admin status do not fail because of negative activity by others. It is not possible for one bad-faith user, or a few such users, to sabotage an RfA.

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: I believe that the raw numbers of supports and opposes ought to be the primary consideration (and that it is in practice the primary consideration). I also believe that certain !votes ought to be ignored on the basis that they are not in good faith.

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 believe that bureaucrats (or perhaps admins as well) ought to be able to strike problem !votes. I believe that a presumption should be made that any particular !vote is made in good faith, but that certain criteria should rebut that presumption (for example, a user should be logged in and have a minimum amount of activity before their !vote will be counted).

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: A userbox or link on the candidate's userpage is quite okay. I don't believe that any project space or project talk space is appropriate for canvassing. The wikipedia and user talk pages are appropriate for that.

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 don't know much about admin coaching and have never participated in it. I believe that there ought to be an editor-coaching program, in which editors are trained in the basic policies, as well as an advanced program (for getting articles 'perfect' or to featured status).

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: ...

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 don't believe that there needs to be a change to the processes that are in place to appeal an administrator's decision (such as deletion review, request to be unblocked, and so on). But I believe that there ought to be a separate process to consider removing an administrator's status (as well as to remove a bureaucrat's status). This process would be similar to RfA, or perhaps even RfA itself.

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: Don't confuse a process of appeal with a process designed to remove administrator status. They are separate. If an administrator's decision is overturned, it does not affect that admin's status as an admin in any way.

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: I don't believe that the process is being abused. I believe that any process to de-sysop an admin ought to be similar in nature to RfA, or perhaps RfA itself.

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 believe that administrator status should be removed for any reason other than that the administrator is using his/her privileges in a way that goes against community consensus. Therefore, removal of admin status would be disciplinary in nature and not automatic.

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 believe that the current process fulfils both of these requirements.

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 don't believe that the current process has a major flaw. I do believe that bureaucrats should have the right to strike votes that are problematic.

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 03:24 on 23 September 2008.