User:Howa0082/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 do not believe that people who desire adminship should be allowed to nominate themselves, for one. If the editor wants an adminbit so bad, they can convince another editor to nominate them. I would oppose anyone who nominates themselves as a power gamer, here only to lord themselves over the plebes.

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: Again, if the desiring admin wants to run, they need to convince someone else, perhaps an established admin. That person can then say "You're not experienced enough." Save people the trouble of digging through those discussions that go nowhere.

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: ...

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: ...

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: ...

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: By lobotomizing the participants. People will be dickheads on the internet purely because they can. You could instate a moderator system, but then their perceived bias would be attacked depending on how the vote swings. I say have someone as impartial as possible come in and mete out justice to the retards, but have nothing else to do with the event beyond enforcement.

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: More rationales is better. Sheer numbers can be gimmicked, and no one would know without using admin or sysop tools to find out. At least, if people have to explain themselves, you'll see the same argument come up over and over again, and you'll know where the gangs or sockpuppets are.

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: ...

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: In much the same way as Wikipedia points users to some random community thing like this questionnaire, perhaps there can be, every week or so, a notice saying "New batch of prospective admins! Come vote!" So, for instance, you don't just make a new page for a person, you just put their name into a queue which is updated once a week or so, automatically creating all the pages with the nominators' rationale. Then voting begins like before.

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: ...

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: ...

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: ...

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: ...

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 think the way to keep admin honest on this point is for Recall to be the assumed proper form. As it is now, admin are asked to say if they're open to recall, and to explain why. Usually, they wax poetic about their love for openness and community-based authority, then immediately renege once they're voted in. It's more poignant to have the prospective admin have to opt out of the process, and explain themselves as being somehow more trustworthy than other people. And yeah, if everyone's automatically open to recall, then lots of people will set recalls on admin they have an axe to grind with. But it should be structured like the quick delete thing. If it's outwardly spurious or just a "YOU REVERTED ME ARGRHGHRHAHGHA RECALL, ASSHOLE" thing, toss the recall. Doesn't need to grind things to a halt. People should also be made to provide specific examples in their recall rationale, lest it be instantly discarded for the same reason. Then, presumably, the process would work like the RfD forums, with people weighing in on the evidence, and be prone to the same gang mentality issues RfD suffers from. But it'd be more honest, with people who might legitimately dislike said admin coming in with their own evidence, which is also weighed, and eventually a verdict is reached via concensus and validity of evidence. If the admin deserves to be stripped of their powers, their behaviour will show it.

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 think a reconfirmation should operate much the way getting adminship in the first place does. A person comes up, perhaps of their own violition so they can write a blurb about why they should stay in power (a bot could be set to remind people they're up), and people debate "Oh, he's too snappish to newbies", "Look how many disputes she's resolved without using her admin bit", "That editor certainly is a cockbag to everyone", etc. Kind of like when a politician runs for re-election, this would simply be like running to get the position again. Supporters and detractors of these people would appear as needed, because most people who hate other people (or like them) on Wikipedia have their talk pages on watch. If the person doesn't even appear to start a reconfirmation within a certain timeframe (say a week), it can be assumed they don't care, and won't mind if their admin powers are stripped.

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: I cannot see a way to fix this issue. Some people just change when they get power. Normal, nice editor; total douchebag admin. Same guy, but with some extra commands at his disposal. I suggest sodium penethol to find out if they're geared entirely to become admin within several months of playing Wikipedia: the MMORPG. Some admin are, and everyone knows it.

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 20:53 on 22 September 2008.