User:Unschool/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: One step would be, paradoxically, to eliminate nominations by fellow editors and simply require self-noms. The current system has almost certainly discouraged hundreds of potential admins because, while they have done quality work and have learned how to contribute, no one has yet taken them under their wing or encouraged them to run. They see nominations and wonder or hope when theirs will come (by the way, this does not apply to Yours Truly; I have no desire to be an admin; I barely have time to do the little I do, let alone assume any other responsibilities). Or they think about self-noms, but see that some editors deprecate self-noms. If self-nom is the norm, more editors will be willing to step forward.

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: Well, I'm not sure that some minimum requirements (e.g., 2000 edits, or twelve months of service, or whatever) is such a bad idea; such requirements would weed out a good number of the inappropriate candidates. But that's not how you wrote the question. I think that SNOWing someone is probably less unkind that allowing them to accumulate a vote of 1 in favor and 72 opppose; I don't have too much of a problem with that. Yeah, the more I think about it, I'd like to see some minimum qualifications like those mentioned above.

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: Simple. Prohibit it. It's simply unnecessary, and it does more to intimidate others, by building up this sense of cliquishness. And of course, as I say above, we should go even further and eliminate all noms but self-noms.

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: Good question. User:Unschool has no answers.

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: Sheesh, how can you ascertain that a question is a "bad faith" question? And my example of a "trick question" might be your example of a critical test. I'm not denying that there may be a problem here, but I'm worried that in this case, the solution might be worse than the problem. I just don't know.

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: Well, WP:CIVIL should probably be applied to delete comments that truly constitute serious attacks, but then, what is "serious"? I tend to think that if you're applying for the mop, you've got to be prepared to occasionally get some dirty water splashed on your clothes. Maybe one of the requirements of applying for adminship should be documented participation in a minumum number of RfAs, say, ten, so that there would be a reasonable expectation that the person applying knows what they are getting into. This would also help with concerns over SNOW.

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: Excellent question. I don't know, I'll just let my fingers to the thinking on the keyboard. First of all, it's not realistic to require a rationale with every vote. There's just too many times when a person's thoughts on this (or other issues) is going to be reflected (if not actually formed) by what they've read that other editors have said. And there's nothing wrong with that. So straight up answers of "oppose" and "support" must be allowed. Other than that, I'm not sure what I think . . . I'm thinking here . . . I think that requiring a consensus in the same manner as we do for articles is just going to drag the process out longer, and as such, will do more to scare away candidates. But I don't have strong feelings on this voting stuff, not because it's not important—it is—but because I don't feel any confidence that I have a solution.

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 just don't know.

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: WP:CANVASS is an abomination. It was written, I'm sure, with the best of intentions, but it is both a farce and it is harmful. How do you have "limited canvassing"? I don't know where to begin in describing how bad this idea is. There should be complete and unlimited freedom to "canvass". Free speech is an inherent right in most of the Anglophonic world, why are we so afraid of it here? Because people might be persuaded by what they read? But that's what the purpose of speech is, to persuade. Why is it okay for me to make comments to persuade people who by chance come to my RfA page, but not okay to contact others to join in the conversation? I guess people don't want their talk pages polluted with people's canvassing. Well, how about we add a button onto our tools that allows any editor to remove anything they perceive as undesired canvassing from their page. It would work like an anti-vandalism tool, but it would only apply to one's own talk page. With one touch, the canvassing post is gone, and if desired, a "please-don't canvass me" warning could be sent to the sender. And with that one touch, you would also leave an edit summary, "Undesired canvassing removed". Somebody who wantonly spams/canvasses too many people might well find it biting back at them, but also, more people would know what's going on. Because, frankly, the anti-canvassing policy, especially when applied to RfA, very neatly assists those who want to keep Wikipedia as cliquish as possible. If you're favored by the clique that hangs out at RfA, then you're in, but if you are an "outsider", then you better not try to bring in more "outsiders". Look if you don't like somebody's canvassing, the answer is not to stifle their right to free speech, the answer is to go follow their posts and tell your side of why you don't approve of this person.

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 know enough to intelligently reply.

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 don't know enough to intelligently reply.

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: Removal of admins should take place via a mirror process of RfA. Someone should be able to nominate a sysop for removal of admin priveleges, and others would come in with their comments and votes. The final decision should be made by whatever process is used to approve admins. This would prevent an admin from being removed by a small, dedicated group of trouble makers. And by just making this a normal part of the process of being an admin, it means that you don't have to depend on the admins for volunteering to join the recall program. I think the Admin Open to Recall process was a great idea—kudos to whoever came up with it. But it probably needs to be reformed, and the way I would do it would just be what I have said—make recall as difficult or easy as it is to approve a sysop.

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 answer to D1.

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: See my answer to D1.

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: It's an excellent idea, but I fear that the simple matter of time would make this too costly to do. Ideally, it should be done annually, but there's simply no way that people would have the time to do it. There might be enough time if you only requires such reconfirmation every five years, but then that's too long to wait if there's a problem. So we're probably better off going with my idea above at D1.

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: As far as the "trust" thing is concerned, I think that this is such a nebulous (yet incredibly vital) thing, that we can't really define how to determine trust. What we are doing right now is probably as close as we can get. The problem is, are the editors taking the time to dig on these candidates? This is where an elimination of the restrictions on canvassing could really help. If we allow canvassing—both positive and negative—to be done, then someone who knows something important about this candidate is more likely to hear about the candidate's RfA, and will therefore be more likely to bring this key information to the attention of the community.

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: My key changes would be as I've outlined above. Eliminate all but self-noms, and eliminate restrictions on canvassing. I know that to the majority of my fellow editors these ideas will appear crazy. But the conventional wisdom is often wrong, and I believe this is such a case. These two steps will result in more editors seeking adminship, and eventually, a higher caliber of candidates will be expected. I definately do NOT think that adminship should ever come automatically with a period of service or number of edits. That would be the single worst thing that would ever happen to our project.

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 01:32 on 28 September 2008.