User:Arakunem/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 would tend to agree with that assessment. It used to be that adminship was "No Big Deal", but even Jimbo has acknowledged that it is becoming a bigger deal than in past. Right now the official line is that an Admin is just an editor with a mop (as in they just tidy up), and that being an admin confers Ability, but not any more Authority than any other editor. I think that this policy should be re-clarified. Either being an admin IS a big deal (in which case prospective candidates would then expect a more intense examination), or it remains NO BIG DEAL, in which case it should be more as it was: "I don't see any reason NOT to promote" vs "I don't see why we SHOULD promote".

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: Its hard to address this, without subjecting the candidate to a pre-rfa written test. Any "read this before nominating" page would be completely voluntary and un-enforceable. All we can do is agree upon a page outlining what is expected from admins, both pre- and post-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 see this as being problematic. Indeed, I see co-nominations as a very strong endorsement of the candidate, even moreso than a "Strong Support". Co-noms often have a longer rationale to them as well, which can help to further flesh out the candidate's strong points. Plus, in my personal opinion, there are several admins and non-admins alike whom I've come across in my Wikicareer whose opinions and judgement I hold in high regard. A co-nom by one of them would hold much weight with me, such that small flaws could be more easily dismissed. ("He didn't use an edit summary till just recently, but I trust <x>'s judgement on this so Why Not")

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: Well, the bottom line is that the community needs to be comfortable with the candidate. If a question helps someone decide, it's worthwhile. They should be added though, after the reviewers have gone over the candidate's history and qualifications. Then, if they NEED to ask a question to help decide, they should.

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: Trick questions tend to only influence one !voter, but they often cause more disruption to the discussion. I personally don't think they're that useful, as a reviewer can usually arrive at the answer by review of the candidate's history. Trying to entrap the candidate just inflames the discussion and is a likely cause of the scenario in Question A1 above. Questions that only require a quick look to the policy page are rather pointless as well, as they don't show any particular understanding of the policy. The candidate may very well fully understand it, but the question itself is not likely to show that. I concur with the 54 who think the questions should be candidate specific.
• The question of how to seperate out the bad faith questions is more tricky. If it were to be Consensus among reviewers, then we end up with a big chunk of the RfA discussion devoted to that. I think that it should be "policy" that failure to answer an optional question can not be used against the candidate. I've seen many RfA's with "Oppose - no answer to Q8". It may take some intuition to know when this scenario is happening, such as "Oppose - I don't trust the candidate" with no other rationale given. This is asked below, but I think that Oppose !votes should have a rationale given.

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: Yes, I've seen more discussion happen below oppose !votes than around the candidate's answers. Those in opposition are entitled to their opinions, but as I mentioned above, they should include a reason. If that is done, badgering the opposers is disruptive and never (that I've seen) results in the opposer changing their view. So, if the process is changed such that Oppose !votes should include specific reasons, then it should also be policy that badgering the opposer is not to be allowed. Civil discussion is fine and should be encouraged: "That edit summary wasn't all THAT bitey, was it" as opposed to "You've had a grudge against this guy since he started".
• RFA CLERKS!!! That's what we need. A group of trusted editors (not necessarily admins either) who police RfA's but may not !vote. As in other venues using clerks, they can recuse themselves if they have some affiliation with the candidate or any parties being disruptive, but the judgement of a non-recused clerk should be law in the context of the RfA.

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: Unfortunately, it does seem like it is mostly a vote instead of a consensus. This may just be due to having a convenient "yardstick" to measure discussions by, but the % line has been pretty well an absolute standard in most cases. That said, I do think that oppose !votes should have a specific reasoning behind them, beyond "I just don't trust this user", IF adminship is still No Big Deal. I don't see the need on the supporting side, as "I see no reason this user would abuse the tools" is exactly the criteria that should be invoked.

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: Bureaucrats should have wide discretion in how they handle the RfA. That's precisely why they go through their own confirmation process. The community has given them an extra vote of confidence in their judgement. They should spend much time reviewing the complete discussion, giving appropriate weights to detailed rationales as well as to "per nom" rationales. The closure should include a fairly detailed rationale from the Bureaucrat in cases where it's not a snowball either way. Even a 70%/30% split (either way) should have a detailed rationale that specifically addresses the concerns of the opposing !votes in the event of a promotion, or the supporting !votes in the case of a declined RfA. They would benefit greatly from the use of RfA Clerks as I mentioned above, as this would require much more of their time.

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: A talk page banner, such as currently exists, is fine. Perhaps even a "Category:Pending RfA Candidates", though anyone can see that list just by going to the RfA main page. Maybe even a Wikipedia news that mentions RFAs in progress (at the Pump, Signpost, etc.)

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 think Admin Coaching is particularly useful right now, as it does just "train for the test". They candidate's familiarity with the policies should come through use rather than rote memorization a few days before RfA. The Admin Coaching process could still be useful, but it should come with an immediate "silent period" whereby the candidate can not be considered for RfA for X months after the coaching. This would give the candidate time to use the knowledge he has picked up in the coaching process, so that he may use it in practice, and see how others apply the policies.

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 complimentary? Are there common themes or elements that could be shared between the two processes, in order to improve the effectiveness of both?

• Response: As above, I think by the time the candidate is promoted, they should have a firm grasp of policies that they will be enforcing. The post-promotion training should address the "how" of what they will be doing and not they "why". The post admin training would go over the use of the tools, familiarization with the buttons, etc. It should not go over "When a CDS-A1 is used", for example.

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: The current Recall is pointless, as it is voluntary (both in participation and going through with it when recalled), and arbitrary. Hypothetically, User:EvilAdmin could just set an impossible threshold for recall while still professing compliance with the system. And I won't even bring up historical cases where a user was recalled and refused to comply. Admins have sucessfully been de-sysopped through the usual dispute resolution channels, and I feel that is appropriate.

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: A seperate process specific to de-sysopping could be adopted. It would be tough to standardize it, just as it is difficult to standardize the RfA process. It should be a discussion/!vote/consensus along the same lines as the RfA. Evidence would be presented by those supporting the recall in this case, while opposing !votes of "I still trust this user" would be fine. It should be constructed to match the RfA process if it is revamped. The problem here is that the Rf!A (for lack of a better term) process would undoubtedly be flooded by disgruntled AfD participants or vandals looking to stir up trouble. Perhaps it would be such that only admins could start a recall proceeding, but that any editor may chime in after it is open. Admins historically are good at policing their own, and this would cut down frivolous nominations. As in RfA's, Bureaucrats would make the final determination.

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 D2

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: This is a bad idea, as it will overload the community with "paperwork". Most admins are good conscientious editors, and having to re-confirm thousands of such admins on any kind of periodic basis is logistically troubling. Admins should serve "quamdiu se bene gesserit".

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: At the end of the day, the community must be comfortable that the candidate will not abuse their tools. Thus, the discussion should be fairly fluid and un-constrained withing the normal guidelines of civility. "Specialist" admins should not be frowned upon as much as they are, though. (See E2 for more).

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: At the moment it seems to be seen by many as a Trophy, which is likely why so many "notnow" RfA's get submitted in the first place. The current process of discussing a user's history and contributions works well, as it is the core of determining community trust. I think the questions regarding what admin activities the candidate will participate in should be taken more into consideration during the discussion. I've seen many RfA's wherein the candidate says they want to continue vandal fighting, and will primarily do vandal blocks and RFPP's. These statements are often met with "Oppose: just another vandal fighter" or "We don't need more anti-vandal-only admins", when in fact the opposite could not be more true. (Until RfA is never backlogged again, we need more of these.) And it is probably a good thing if an anti-vandal-only editor only does anti-vandal-only admin activities at first, as it is what they know best. This will naturally branch them out into other aread of adminship as they grow as admins.
• I don't see any aspect of the RfA process that should be eliminated, except possibly the use of an absolute % of !votes. Rather, the process should be augmented by additional features and processes as I have outlined in this page.

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 20:17 on 20 September 2008.