User:Shereth/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: Very little. The process is daunting because, in spite of what some may say, it is indeed a "big deal". When you have an RfA that is running you are going to be exposed in a way that generally does not happen. People are going to be combing through your contributions, questioning your actions and judging the way you handle yourself. This sort of scrutiny is unavoidable; anyone who cannot handle the rigors of their actions being dissected is likely lacking a fundamental trait that a good administrator has, that being the ability to withstand scrutiny and disagreement with one's actions.

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 feel this question misses the mark a bit, as the old notion that we do not have minimum requirements is a fallacy. While no published and official minimum requirements exist, there are numerous de facto requirements that a candidate must pass in order for their candidacy to have any shot at success. "In lieu" of creating formal minimum requirements, prospective applicants can be informed of these de facto requirements and advised against nomination should they fail to meet them, but so long as the community has these "informal" requirements in place it would be more honest to the candidate to simply lay them out as formal, official requirements, with a notification that nominations not meeting them will be subsequently removed with no prejudice against a subsequent nomination.

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: Large numbers of co-nominating statements can overburden the nomination and create a sort of tl;dr sentiment among the readers. More damaging is the impression it sometimes leaves that people are trying too hard to inflate the candidate's readiness and qualifications. A single nominating statement is sufficient; if multiple editors wish to contribute, they can collaborate on a concise, effective nomination statement along with a brief endorsement of the statement thereof.

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: There is no satisfactory response to this issue. Any limit placed upon the number of questions would be purely arbitrary, and run the risk of excluding valid and valuable questions when numerous unimportant questions have already been posed. It is, as always, within the candidate's discretion whether or not to answer questions, and when an excessive number are posed it is also well within their discretion to ignore the more facetious ones in favor of supplying a good response to the substantial questions. In a way, a candidate's judgment regarding which, if any, of the optional questions to answer is a reflection on their ability as an administrator to identify and respond to key issues versus minor distractions.

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, there is no satisfactory way to "police" the content of questions without necessarily imposing otherwise arbitrary restrictions. A good candidate should be able to identify "trick" or "loaded" questions and handle them appropriately. Those reviewing a nomination should also bear in mind that the questions (and ultimately the nomination as a whole) are designed to gauge a candidate's trustworthiness as an administrator and their ability to carry out the duties thereof, and keep this in mind when reviewing a candidate's response (or lack thereof) to all questions.

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: RfA is a vote, plain and simple; it is not a "discussion" like an AfD. When an editor lodges an unqualified vote it is not unreasonable to expect them to elaborate upon their opinion (otherwise the closing 'crat might afford it less weight), but it is by and large inappropriate to attempt to dismiss someone's opinion by refuting it. All editors are entitled to their opinion and there is no such thing as a "wrong" opinion. It should be the duty of bureaucrats to see misinformed opinions for what they are, but it is not the duty of anyone to try and strike another's opinion down.

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: The very reason that deletion debates are structured as a consensus-based process is because we have clear policies and guidelines governing the necessary inclusion criteria for articles. We do not vote based on what we think should become of an article, but rather voice opinions, discuss them and come to an agreement on whether or not these policies and guidelines are met. On the other hand, there exist no firm guidelines upon which to gauge a prospective administrator's abilities; in this case we are left with little other than a collective opinion. As stated above, opinions are largely irrefutable. That said, some opinions are going to be obviously facetious. I may well opine that a particular editor is unsuited to the task because they have a funny name, and no one can refute my opinion. This is why bureaucrats are selected by a much more intensive process than administrators; we place that extra trust and judgment in them to determine when someone's vote is based upon a serious concern or is merely a facetious vote.

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: Many nominations have a fairly obvious fate; the vast majority exist outside of that "gray area" and in cases like this, the closure is largely procedural and the bureaucrat's actions are both predictable and transparent. In less clear cases, those where the 'crat must make a decision rather than merely take an action, it is imperative that an explanation for the closure be made. Bureaucrats are, ideally, those in who we have an extra amount of faith and trust, and as such they should be afforded relatively wide latitude in determining the validity of the votes being expressed. Nevertheless, in cases where discretionary action has been taken, it should be made clear to the community how a decision was reached. There is no need for more active managing/clerking of an ongoing request, however; in cases where vandalism or undue incivility are going on, the community as a whole generally does a good job in throttling these kinds of behaviors.

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 truly neutral form of on-site canvassing would be in fact a good thing. Currently, requests are often decided by a relatively small and cohesive group of "RfA Regulars" and it is relatively rare to see a broader base of opinion come in to play. That said, there are relatively few methods of broadcasting one's nomination in a manner that is truly neutral. A user page/user talk page header to that effect, and perhaps a temporary signature link, would ensure that a wide variety of people get the message. Manually notifying individuals or groups, such as on user talk pages or WikiProject pages, however, is less neutral. Even if the wording of the "advertising statement" is neutral, the fact that an editor is (intentionally or otherwise) picking and choosing who is notified creates an inherent bias. This should always be avoided.

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: Admin coaching should focus on the qualities that make a good administrator: patience, neutrality, an ability to engage difficult users, and sound judgment. These are fairly abstract qualities that are somewhat difficult to "coach", but a good mentor will be able to school a student in these circles. While a familiarity with policy and procedure are important to an administrator, knowing "the book" back and forth does not a good admin make. Coaching should therefore focus on the specific areas in which a potential administrator wishes to contribute, "getting one's feet wet", as it were, and less emphasis on knowing the ins and outs of the law.

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: Not only are there areas where these two concepts overlap - they should be practically identical. The only new emphasis when training "new" administrators versus prospective administrators should be an increased importance placed on familiarization with the ins and outs of policy and guideline. That said, the ultimate goal of Admin Coaching - and by extension, Admin Training - should not be seen as a route to adminship, but as a means of preparing one for the rigors of the position. Whether a candidate has undergone "coaching" should have no impact on their RfA, as only the end result - what they learned - should apply.

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: The only currently enforceable method of stripping a user of the admin bit is via the Arbitration Committee. Arbcom is, however, ultimately a final method of resolving disputes and is not designed with policing administrative action in mind. Arbcom may be suited to dealing with administrators who are in flagrant violation of policy, but this is not an efficient method of handling "bad" administrators who make poor decisions that do not necessarily fall within the realm of "policy violation", such as persistently closing discussions in a questionable manner. Absent some type of recall process there is simply no way to handle "poor" administrators. Put simply, Arbcom is for malfeasance but ill-suited to cases of misfeasance or nonfeasance.

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: A standardized recall process would necessitate the creation of an entity tasked with hearing complaints against administrators and determining when an actionable misfeasance exists. The current "process" laid out in the WP:AOR page is woefully inadequate - if it is to be standardized, a specific method if initiating recall proceedings needs to be created, a sort of "Recall Committee" needs to determine whether grounds for a recall are present, and if so, the administrator in question would be subject to a reconfirmation vote not dissimilar to the current RfA.

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: As mentioned above, the creation of a trusted "Recall Committee" to judge recall requests would be necessary to circumvent abuse of the recall system. Ideally this committee would be made up of trusted, neutral Wikipedia editors with a demonstrated understanding of administrative processes. This committee would hear recall requests and determine if the complaint is reasonable and demonstrates potential misfeasance, and if so, direct that a reconfirmation vote take place. This would prevent any spurious complaints from reaching the reconfirmation phase and insulate administrators against vindictive users.

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: Any successful petition to recall an administrator (as touched upon above) would move to a reconfirmation vote. Administrators in good standing should never be subjected to reconfirmation, as doing so is a pointless drain on resources and manpower. A reconfirmation (recall RfA) should be conducted in a manner essentially similar to an RfA, with the only exception being that instead of a nomination statement, a "recall statement" is presented by one of the plaintiffs, and instead of an acceptance statement, the administrator is allowed to make a rebuttal. To prevent needlessly long reconfirmations, there will be no "rebuttals of rebuttals". The voting process shall be identical, those supporting the recall and those opposing it.

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: This touches upon the subject of formal minimum requirements again. Generally speaking, as the notion of trust is so vague and open to interpretation there is no way to legislate a definition thereof; one cannot codify what constitutes the "trust of the community" other than passing a successful RfA.

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: Unfortunately the notion that Adminiship itself is a sort of goal or trophy is one that has been perpetuated by the community by insisting upon the imposition of quantifiable requirements, such as edit counts, time on the project, and the like. This is further perpetuated by social aspects such as templates offering successful candidates congratulations, the standard RfA thanks spam, and the like. The idea of congratulating successes and offering condolences to those who have not passed reinforces the concept that "administrator" is a position worthy of praise and congratulation and is indeed viewed as a "rank" achieved after meeting certain goals. Given the deeply entrenched habits of the Wikipedia community as a whole, I do not see this problem as ever going away.

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.

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 19:57 on 12 September 2008.