User:Filll/RfA review

Questions

When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)

   I think that all candidates should be nominated by another editor. Self-nominations should not be allowed. I think all candidates should have completed some minimal admin training, showing some familiarity with different areas at Wikipedia, as well as Wikipedia policies. I think that there should be some restriction in how often an editor can be a candidate to avoid wasting community resources (no more often than once every 3 or 4 months, perhaps?). I think there should be some better methods of judging reasoning abilities and maturity of the candidate, such as successful completion of User:Filll/WP Challenge for example. I am not in favor of age restrictions. I think our set of metrics for evaluating candidates should be expanded, and I am working on developing improved quantitative editor classification techqniques for this purpose (ask for details). I think all admin candidates should sign a disclaimer that they acknowledge that they might very well be more subject to harassment because of their increased prominence and because of increased scrutiny once they become admins. We should provide instruction in security practices and techniques for minimizing harassment for administrator candidates.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Whether it is formal or informal (whatever that means), I think some form of mentorship and/ or coaching and/ or training is absolutely essential, both before and after a successful RfA.

3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)

   I would do away with self-nomination, which has a number of associated problems.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   I have no problem with advertising and canvassing. It cannot be prevented, so it should be permitted. However, to keep it from getting out of hand, there should be some restrictions on how much is allowed.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   I think that asking the candidate to answer meaningful questions is important. Often the questions are not particularly meaningful.

6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

   I am very uncomfortable with the badgering or bullying that goes on associated with certain votes (particularly "oppose" votes). I think this leads to a very bad atmosphere associated with RfAs. Some have even stated that voting "oppose" constitutes harasssment of the candidate, leading those voting "oppose" to be fair game for attack. This attitude stinks. As can be seen from some diffs on my talk page, people feel justified in attacking others as revenge for RfA "votes" months earlier. Editors are making threats against others for their positions at RfA. I think that the entire negative environment around RfAs is enhanced by the discussion of the votes cast, particularly the "oppose" votes.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   I have no comment at the moment on this topic.

8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)

   I have no comment on this at the moment.

9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)

   I think pre-RfA training, as well as post-election training are essential. I want to see a probationary period after a successful RfA as well, where new admins on probation can be eliminated easily, or sent back for more training, etc if problems surface.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I am less enthused about "recall" because most admins who are doing their jobs properly will generate a huge number of editors who hate their guts after a while. Probation is different than "recall" because new admins under probation would not necessarily have the full complement of tools or be allowed to use them without supervision, or as often. However, after an admin is a full admin, after a year or more of tool use, the admin will almost certainly have a long list of enemies who are angry at the admin. This is almost impossible to avoid if the admin is doing real admin work.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. How do you view the role of an administrator?

   As sort of a policeman for WP, to protect the editors and keep things moving in a positive direction if possible.

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

   (1) Good judgement. (2) Caution. (3) Knowledge of the rules, principles, policies, traditions and conventions of Wikipedia. (4) Slow to anger; a thick skin. (5) Willingness to be exposed to attacks and harassment because of their heightened prominence as admins.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?

   Yes. And for my votes at RfA, I have been harassed and attacked repeatedly and subject to assorted threats on-wiki and off-wiki. I have been attacked and the attacks were justified as revenge for how I voted at RfA. I have been badgered for voting "oppose" and I found it quite unpleasant and distasteful. I have now stopped voting completely at RfA and RfB and similar polls as a result.

2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?

   No, and I would not because of the associated increased exposure to harassment, intimidation, threats, stalking, badgering, bullying etc. It is just not worth it.

3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?

   More training is better. Coaching and training and other preparation should be encouraged. I would like to see a probationary period as well, possibly associated with more required training. However, I am afraid that the RfA Review might get mired down in all the previous political nightmares that are associated with RfA reform discussions.

In addition, emotions about RfA are so heated that editors are threatening each other or feel justified to take revenge on each other for RfA "votes". Therefore, I am a bit nervous that taking the "wrong position" on an RfA reform proposal could very well result in some "posse" of editors who are members of some off-wiki website, or other interested "hate group" or collection of agitators and malcontents, mounting some attack on one or more editors at some later date for engaging in "thought crimes". I would like to see the community take a strong position that this sort of outrageous behavior will no longer be tolerated, or at least actively discouraged.

Examples of suggestioned training: (1) A few weeks at noticeboards like those dealing with WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts etc. The candidate should demonstrate some proficiency in taking part in discussions, resolving difficult situations and closing threads. (2) Completion of exercises at User:Filll/WP Challenge. The candidate should produce essay answers to a wide range of problems in challenging areas, and then discuss and defend their positions. (3) Creation of some featured content in different areas, and creation of one or more DYKs. (4) Evidence of substantial experience at a range of tasks, including vandal fighting, new page patrol, DRVs and AfDs. (5) Function as a mediator in one or two cases and successfully resolve a dispute through mediation. (6) Show evidence of substantial editing of a controversial article (at least 200 edits to the talk page and main page, combined). Show evidence of reaching consensus on difficult issues on controversial articles. (7) Other training as deemed necessary and appropriate.

I am filing this contribution to the RfA Review. But I am much less enthusiastic, knowing the history of previous efforts, and the unbridled anger that is associated with reform movements at RfA, or indeed anything associated with RfAs.