User:Adthegreat/RfA review Recommend Phase
A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
---|
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
[edit]Selection and Nomination
[edit]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: If a person wants to be an administrator, then he or she should be able to cope with forms and regulations. The process should be entirely doable for a prospective admin.
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: If there was a form of apprenticeship before becoming a real admin, people might realize how much work and responsibility is involved. Having present admins showing the applying admins what to do during a certain time period would be very effective.
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: Not only should editors nominate prospective admins, but the current admins should nominate. It would be more logical to let the present admins make decisions about who to select, than having unqualified people picked just by the majority (assuming of course, that the person just tells others to nominate them.)
The RfA Debate (Questions, Election, Canvassing)
[edit]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 candidate should write a short essay detailing why they want to become an admin and why they should be chosen. This would not only deter the unqualified, but also give comprehensive information about candidates.
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: Private life should be avoided if at all possible, with questions focusing more on experience in wiki-like environments. The questions should be stated so that they are clearly understandable, avoiding unfair tricks. The majority should decide what questions are appropriate for asking, by democratic vote.
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: The RfA should be neutral and treat everybody in the same fashion. Although it is necessary to make sure that the candidates are well-qualified, the process should not by off-putting or to selective.
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 best option would be to have a simplified form, followed by a test period with specific challenges to test the candidates. After a certain period of time, the community would vote on the candidates that withstood the testing. The raw numbers would decide in this case. If the newly selected admin seems to be incompetent, then he or she could be voted off, and the candidate with the second highest number of votes would be selected.
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: The community should be told of the reasons for a success or not. This way future candidates would learn from others mistakes, and do only better.
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: If the candidate were to write a summary of why they should be nominated, a simple link, which would look the same for all candidates, would be a fair and neutral way to advertise.
Training and Education
[edit]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: By having a period of apprenticeship, the candidates could be paired with an admin to work with. The admin would go through thereby show exactly what is waiting for the candidate.
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: There should be a training period both before and after the RfA, so that no time would be wasted teaching candidates things that they do not have to know before the RfA, or vise versa, simple things after they have passed the RfA.
Adminship (Removal of)
[edit]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: If the community realises that a certain admin is abusing his or her rights, then there should be a vote for the removal of said admin.
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: There should be regular checks for every admin to see if they are appropriately using their authority. This short procedure could be repeated fairly often, so that only the bet remain.
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: By having a vote, only admins that have actually abused their position would get voted off. The community would hopefully realize if an admin deserves to keep his place or not.
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 their were a short procedure to see if the admin is still involved and worthy, there would only be hard-working productive admins at any given time. If this small check were to occur somewhere around every two weeks, and were short enough, there would be no reason not to implement it.
Overall Process
[edit]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."[1] 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: The easiest way to do this would be to have an elite editor group, where all the long time members would be. If only about 10 to 25 percent of normal editors were to be selected for this higher ranking position, and admins were only picked from this elite group, it would be much easier to ensure that the people applying are worthy.
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: In essence the RfA makes sense, however if the admin role were slightly less strict, or if there was a slightly lower position, then more people might think about it. The community should have the right to vote for admins, but on the other hand, it is good to pick only the best candidates by testing them.
Once you're finished...
[edit]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
[edit]- ^ "Requests for adminship". 2003-06-14.
This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 08:40 on 30 September 2008.