User:Wikidemon/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 see a problem, although I am not intimately familiar. We shouldn't create busywork just for the sake of busywork, but administrators are asked to understand, follow, and enforce a long range of policies, guidelines, and principles and to analyze the sometimes subtle interplay between them - in other words, they're asked to understand procedures. Here is a procedure. It's not unfair to ask them to understand it. Any streamlining should not come at the expense of a good selection method.

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: Interestingly and ironically, by setting up a greater hoop to go through before a nomination is accepted. Maybe something so simple as a short questionnaire that is unbinding and not saved that captures the essence of what it means to be prepared or qualified.

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: If it doesn't cause a bias or cabal, what's the problem? We need more administrators.

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: Sure, the number of questions can be limited, done in a more readable format, or the answer length can be limited. Another way is to give a fixed number of questions (say, 20) and ask the candidates to choose 5 questions to answer, in a way that they feel best represents why they should be admins. Another approach would be to allow candidates to put up candidacy statement pages in lieu of questionnaires. But this could generate excessive campaigning.

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: No opinion.

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: Redact, strike, or move contentious comments. Be stern about behavioral issues. Another approach, limit or prohibit threaded discussion, or have a discussion section following the votes.

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: You could ask for a statement after every vote (you don't have to insist on it - most people realize they can influence others by making the statement). But limit it to a single sentence.

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: No opinion, but certainly discretion is useful.

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: We could come up with a strict guideline of the canvassing message, or simply use a template with a limited choice of canvassing messages.

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'm not familiar to know if it's a good program, but the idea sounds good. All education programs have that problem of "teaching for the test." If it's a good test, that's just fine. Because in the process people do learn.

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: no opinion.

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 think it's redundant. DR almost never removes admins, and when it happens it is in the limited class of behavior problems such as abuse of tools. It's rare that an admin will be de-sysopped for incivility, incompetence, or repeated poor decisions. The "open to Recall" process is a good idea, if rarely used. Rather than each admin for themselves it's best to encourage admins to choose one of several available recall procedures, and have some independent thoughtful people come up with a statement (much as a nonpartisan election group in the real world) on what they think of the effectiveness of the various procedures.

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 don't favor a mandatory process of the "open to Recall" style. Other mandatory processes would be better. I know it's a perennial proposal, but requiring admins to re-up every 1-2 years, or new admins to be on a probationary status and need confirmation vote after that, would both work. Volume could be reduced by having daily slates (i.e. a voter could simply say "yes" to the entire slate of re-ups / probationary period graduations that day), and customize their vote only if there is an objection.

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: In theory, yes. But in practice I don't think this happens. It's relatively rare (and there are a few notorious examples) of an admin getting hounded out by people affected by their decisions. Whatever process we have, we are going to get wikidrama if there is wheel waring, admin cabals, admins blocking each other, admin bots, etc. I think the recall procedure is probably a better outlet for that than others. But we should encourage maximum wikiquette during a recall procedure - it is surely stressful to the admin involved and leaves lots of room for making personal attacks and harsh statements.

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: 2-year cycle. Existing admins will be up on their 2nd anniversary or, if that's less than 6 months from now (or in the past) they get extra years tacked on so that none are due in less than six months. Done in weekly or monthly slates to reduce volume, with tightly controlled format to keep it orderly. Voters can either vote to confirm entire slate, or mention specific disapprovals. Should an admin get more than a certain number, a discussion area could be created to explain why there is a problem. However, it should be considered a re-election or re-up, so there should be no stigma in not being approved any more than failing an original admin vote. Basically a greatly streamlined RfA done in slates.

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: Nothing specific beyond my responses, above. Admins should not be considered super-editors, and it should not be considered too much as a badge of achievement. It's a perfectly responsible decision, and quite common, for very good content editors or wikignomes to value being a regular editor rather than admin. Some people just want to edit the encyclopedia and not get involved in administration and its attendant responsibilities and drama. Plus, though content experience is helpful, what makes a good admin is not always what makes a good editor.

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: Not sure what to do about it, but the process is a bit arcane and esoteric, and most regular content editors do not participate in the votes.

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 19:22 on 26 September 2008.