User:Willscrlt/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 have noticed that the RfA process often comes across like a "Good Old Boys Club" to outsiders. Those who are in the club know all the right things to say and ask, those are aren't have their comments belittled or ridiculed. The fact that many of those who are commenting for the first time in an RfA don't ask the best questions or make the most productive comments, is unfortunate, because it reduces the likelihood that experienced editors will take what they say seriously. But the "newbies" don't see their own shortcomings in experience as the problem, but rather an elitism among the upper aristocracy of the establishment. "Don't bite the newbies" needs to be fully worked into the process so that there doesn't need to be a learning curve that divides.

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 there is an intensity curve that comes with experience, and it peaks earlier than the experience curve does. In other words, people new to Wikipedia struggle and learn and improve. They start to feel comfortable with the whole process, so they are ready for the next challenge. They see Adminship as the next logical step, so they apply because they want to grow. The fact that the community may not yet feel they are ready is highly disappointing. The person knows he or she is ready for more, but the community isn't ready to hand over the keys. I don't like adding layers of bureaucracy to an already overly bureaucratic system, but if there was some in-between step between ordinary editor and ordinary admin that these highly interested, but not completely vetted editors could progress to, that would be help. It should not be a mandatory requirement for adminship (i.e., if I wanted to be an admin, I shouldn't have to go through the extra step of a junior admin or whatever). Consider it an optional step for those who want to take a fast-track to adminship. Such a program should involve mentoring by an existing admin (like Adopt-a-User perhaps?) and some of the duties of a full admin. The point is to give them an opportunity to cut their teeth on meaningful tasks (not just busy-work) under the watchful eye of one or more admins. It also gives them an opportunity to develop a record or actions that can be used later during their RfA.

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: I don't follow RfAs enough to understand what a co-nomination is or why it is a problem. It sounds like two people are running together (running mates?) for Adminship. It seems to me that each person should be evaluated on his or her own. I don't like the thought of people running together on a "combined ticket". Therefore, I would suggest capping the limit at zero--no co-nominations allowed. Period. If that's not what co-nomination is, then kindly ignore my statements.

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: The questions are the main reason why I do not participate in RfAs or go through the process myself. I think that the questions are well-intentioned, but ultimately stupid and largely useless. If you read through them enough, they all sound formulaic. People who succeed in RfAs know how to answer questions in the way that will get them approved. People who answer outside of the established norms rarely succeed. It comes across as "gaming the system". There are also a lot of people who use the process as a sort of inquisition that is nearly an attack. Many of the questions are deliberately tricky and there can be no satisfying answer. Many of the questions are not relevant to Adminship. Worst of all, the number of questions is just incredibly long. People don't really care about the other answers or questions, just their own (as witnessed by the fact that often several questions are nearly the same except for phrasing differences). I think there should be some standard questions, or a pool of questions to be drawn from, and each candidate can just answer them upfront at the start of the process. Treat it like a job interview instead of a boxing match. Like a job interview, if the candidate says something surprising (Q: What would you do if a newbie blanked a page? A: I'd permanently ban them and put a block on their entire IP range!!!!! Die newbies die!!!), a few related follow-up questions would be reasonable.

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: Quoting policy is dumb in this phase. If you want to fairly evaluate the candidate's knowledge of the rules, create an online exam to test that, and then post their score as part of the RfA process. Trick questions, as I mentioned above, suck and do not help to evaluate a candidate's abilities as an Admin (except in how they answer trick questions). When I review RfAs, it is only their edit history, their attitudes toward users, deletionist or inclusionist tendencies, and other job-related questions that I am concerned with. Again, I look at this like a job interview. I don't feel that anything unrelated to their job as an admin should be discussed, unless there is concern over a COI.

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: Treat it like a job interview instead of an inquisition, and all that negative stuff should disappear.

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: Pure raw voting is easily tampered with, so I don't consider that to be a very helpful metric. I look at who does the voting (I'd consider a vote from Jimmy's to be worth about 50 newbie votes, and established admins whom I respect would be worth about 25 votes. Regular established users would be worth about 10 votes to me. These are the kinds of things I consider as I peruse the current list of votes, which helps me make up my own mind. I definitely look at the rationales behind votes. A vote without a rational is not worth as much as a "I agree with ___" vote, and that's considerably less weighty than a rationale that is well thought out. I don't see anything wrong with the current hybrid method regularly used in consensus building.

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: This is also being discussed on Commons. I feel that the 'Crats do a great job of removing and discounting problem votes, and that they should continue as-is. Slightly more detailed closing rationales would probably be appreciated, but except in the case of a speedy or lengthy closure or one where the results are particularly close, I think they aren't particularly necessary. Usually the results are pretty obvious, so why force a 'Crat to go into detail on those?

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: Who cares? Politicians canvas all the time. Sometimes it helps them win, sometimes they still lose. I have no problem with someone I've developed a history with through editing an article or Adopt-a-User or whatever from commenting on my talk page that he or she is in an RfA and to please add feedback to the discussion. On the other hand, I wouldn't want every RfA candidate spamming my talk page with that type of stuff.

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: Yeah, that's the program that I was thinking of for question A2. I think it's a good idea and should be expanded. Again, if the RfA focuses on job skills and less on how to answer arbitrary questions then there is no way to "teach for the test". The RfA process should examine what the people have done in the past to extrapolate what they are likely to do in the future and be sure it fits in with the goals of the community. That's not something that can be "taught", but something in the way they phrase their edit summaries, their talk page commentary, and everything else they do.

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: Good idea, but wrong timing. The mentoring should be done in preparation. Once "blessed" ("cursed"?) as an admin, the person should be ready to hit the ground running. The reverse would be like granting a student a degree and then having them take classes to justify the degree. WRONG. Train them first, observe how they do in the process, then examine their performance, and once satisfied that they would do well, grant their adminship. So, the concept is good, just reversed.

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: Dunno. I haven't participated in those. It would seem that if an Admin breaks a job-related rule, then removal of Adminship should be automatic subject to a reinstatement review in which any extenuating circumstances could be explained. If there are no clear-cut lines that an admin should not cross, then the rules need to be clarified. That would probably help the admins do their job better anyway.

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: See my D1 response. Removal of Adminship should be automatic for breaking rules. If the Admin hasn't broken any rules, then there is no reason to recall the Admin.

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: Again, keep things simple. If the person hasn't broken a rule, then there's no cause to recall. If he or she did break a rule, there's no cause to recall, because the removal of the Admin bit should be automatic, subject to appeal after the removal.

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: If the person isn't doing admin duties, then they should lose the bit. If they are doing their duties, and they aren't breaking the rules, then there's no need to reconfirm, because every action is a reconfirmation that the person is doing his or her job correctly. It's all much simpler than people seem to think it is. At least, it should be.

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: Again, it's all focused on the wrong end or the issue. Get the rules for an admin crystal clear. Then you can see if a person behaves in a manner that is appropriate for an admin. To put it another way, create the standard, and then see if the candidate measures up to the standard. If he or she does, then there's no reason not to let them be an admin. If the person doesn't have a clear enough history at this time, then the person should go into the pre-admin program. If the person shows obvious non-admin tendancies, then the person shouldn't be an admin. The original version of the policy was the best. It has been needlessly complicated over time. But that standard is what's missing.

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: Of course it's a trophy. The definition of an Admin is basically that the person is a super janitor. The reality is that an Admin is a person who is revered as being a little better than his or her peers. I have scolded Admins in the past for acting irresponsibly, and pointing out that as an Admin they should know better. At that point, they fall back on the janitor description (I'm nothing but a janitor, so I'm entitled to act however I like without worrying that people will emulate my actions.). The reality is that people do emulate Admins, because they are seen as rolemodels. I think that the RfA process is a lot of the reason for that. If we were choosing people based on their janitorial skills instead of their popularity (which is what the current RfA process essentially gages) then it would be a different matter.

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 21:12 on 25 September 2008.