User:BlueMoonlet/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: The reason I myself have been daunted and have never applied is that I don't feel able to understand and navigate the political aspect of it. To be fair, my available levels of motivation and time/effort have also played a role.

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: It seems to me that WP:RFA already has some nice helpful info and links at the top, including WP:GRFA. If people can't be bothered to read that, then they deserve to be told (gently, of course) to come back to RFA when they're better prepared.

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: This is probably a good idea. The nominator does not actually have any important role other than to briefly introduce the nominee, and that need not be done repeatedly. If there are too many prospective nominators, then let the nominee choose. A prospective nominator can just as easily put his/her sentiments after a Strong Support bullet.

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: You can't limit by the number of questions, because closet supporters of the nominee might then fill up the available number with "softball" questions. And I don't think there's an alternative to having the nominee available to answer freely-asked questions, because some nominees may have a certain history that makes certain topics relevant, that won't be so for everyone. An alternative idea might be to have a deadline (say, a certain number of days after the RFA is opened). That way, the nominee isn't burdened with answering questions until kingdom come.

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: Both good questions and good answers should be apparent to the discerning reader. I don't know that it's a good idea to limit questions too much. If something truly is in bad faith, then bureaucrats, who act as RFA referees, should be responsible to deal with it.

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: Some measure of negativity is unavoidable, since not everyone will be (or should be) approved. The only remedy I can see is for people to act in good faith.

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 status quo is a hybrid of the two, and I would not change it. Being strictly vote-based leaves us open to canvassing and meatpuppeting. Going strictly by arguments leaves too much leeway for a result that is imposed upon the community rather than approved by it. The current system relies on the discretion of bureaucrats to set the vote-threshold lower if the opposes show poor reasoning (or vice versa), but also sets limits on that discretion.

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 would not change the amount of discretion currently heald by bureaucrats. A closing rationale seems like a good idea, but I wouldn't necessarily require it to be too "detailed". I don't think Bureaucrats need to take a very active role during the RFA, unless something truly bad-faith is going on (see B2).

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: This is a good question and a tricky one. From the standpoint of a concerned editor who doesn't watch the RFA page closely, certainly there are people whose RFAs I would want to know about were they to take place (some to support and some to oppose). A convenient way to be informed just of the opening and closing of RFAs, or even to watch for certain users, would be helpful. From the nominee's point of view, unfortunately I can't see a legitimate way to get the attention of someone who is watching neither you nor RFAs in general that isn't canvassing.

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 see that it needs to be. If Coaching is "primarily a pre-adminship process", as stated below, then there's little point in focusing on what happens after an RFA whose outcome is not known. I don't see a problem with Coaching being a "RFA preparation programme", as there has never been any requirement that new admins take part in any training program. A nominee's participation in Coaching, which may be considered a plus (conscientious preparation) or a minus (learning how to present oneself, possibly to the detriment of honesty), should be noted by RFA evaluators and factored into the decision.

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: I have no direct knowledge of New Admin School, having never been in a position to make use of it. If I ever were in such a position, the benefit of experienced mentorship would definitely be valuable.

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: Standards of admin conduct need to be taken seriously and enforced impartially. There are recent signs (for example, C68-FM-SV) that ArbCom is starting to effectively discharge its role as the final court of appeal in matters of conduct. I take encouragement from that, though there is much room for continued improvement. Such oversight is absolutely essential for this community to function; I see no alternative.

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 am opposed to Recall. WP:DR, though imperfect, is sufficient and is superior to the alternatives. See below.

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 agree with these concerns, and I am not in favor of Recall in any form. Admins are called upon to make difficult decisions, and sometimes cannot avoid angering one side or another in a dispute. I believe that, once appointed, they should be insulated from politics so that they may make such decisions freely. If an admin has truly betrayed the community's trust, then they may be removed after an overwhelming consensus in an RfC or by ArbCom.

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 am opposed to any such system, as discussed above. Adminship should be like a federal judgeship, held for life except in case of gross deriliction of duty (as determined either by overwhelming consensus of the community or by ArbCom). I've seen too much "wikidrama" to support any system that would encourage it to happen more often.

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: ...

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: ...

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 18:07 on 26 September 2008.