User:CosmicPenguin/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!

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? 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: The process is daunting for several reasons - the bar keeps increasing at a steady rate, and anybody who is really qualified to be an administrator probably isn't interested in the drama. A lot of the drama comes from established administrators who, having been put through drama themselves, met out a similar or greater amount of drama on the new prospective administrator.  The selection bias can be countered by only allowing non-administrators to vote in requests for adminship.  The community would award the bit - think a a group of concerned employees electing a company representative rather then having that same representative selected by the board of directors.
 * Response: The community tries really hard to pretend that there are not de-facto minimum requirements, but there are. Give in, and codify the requirements and stick to them.  If no administrator stands a chance of getting the bit without 3 months of solid participation and 10,000 edits, then why even pretend that it is possible?

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 have no problem with co-nominations - there is nothing wrong with endorsing a candidate - if somebody feels it is necessary to pile on and add their names to a meaningless co-nominator list, then so be it.

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? 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: The questions are silly - nobody who truly values the bit is going to say anything controversial. This is politics at its finest - watch the presidential debate on Friday and draw the parallels to the latest RFA.  Every administrator is going to support the rules, and cut down on vandalism, and be open to recall - that what you say to get approved.  There have been myriad of examples of administrators going back on their word for better or worse.  The candidate should simply present themselves, discuss their motivations for becoming an administrator and what they plan to do with the bit, and then let their history speak for themselves.  I do think that the voters should be able to publicly challenge the actions of a candidate. but lets do away with selecting administrators based on questions.
 * Response: As I said, I am not in favor of questions at all - but if they must exist, then they must be limited to discussion about the prior history and decisions of the candidate - all questions must be supported by diffs.  All other questions prohibited.

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: Allowing only non-administrators to vote is a good start. TEveryone butts heads with somebody on Wikipedia, that is naturally going to draw personal attacks and civility issues, but lets face it, just being a administrator invites that behavior every day.  If somebody cares enough to make a personal attack at somebody's RFA, then there is a back story there that is worth investigating.  Either it will demonstrate good judgment by the candidate or it will raise a red flag that indicates that this administrator may soon appear on the pages of WP:ANI.

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: I favor a strict counted vote by non-administrators, with obvious vote stacking and sock puppetry dismissed by the bureaucrat.  There should be a period of discussion prior to voting whereupon anybody (administrator or not) can endorse (or not) the cannidate.  Once voting is open, non-administrators will vote.

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: yes - Bureaucrats must take a much enhanced role in the process - they must actively vet sockpuppetry, personal attacks and other prohibited behavior - if the community is left to police that for themselves, then drama happens.  if a straight vote is not used, the the bureaucrat must absolutely provide a specific rationale for the closure.

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: Canvassing should be allowed - as extensively as the candidate dares. If there is a waiting period between nomination and voting, then the edits of the candidate during that time should be of foremost importance to the process.  If the candidate over-extends themselves in canvasing, that should be noted by the voters and managed accordingly.

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: In my option, it is "teaching for the test" that is missing from the process. No administrator should say "I didn't know about that" - he/she should be exposed to as much of the process as possible in preparation for an RFA.

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: Mentorship should be encouraged after the RfA as well as peer support via IRC and other mechanisms.

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: Existing dispute resolution processes should be used in an attempt to mitigate the problem and calm the situation. Arbitration should only be used if there is an egregious violation of Wikipedia policies that resulted in damage to the encyclopedia (note that somebody getting their feelings hurt over a block is not damaging to the encyclopedia).  Recall should not be removed - in fact it should be strengthened (see below).

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: It should be a mandatory process, managed by the bureaucrats, and recall decided on by a committee of them following a formalized process (think Arbitration, but for administrator matters only).  I think of the Arb board as the Supreme Court, and the committee of recall bureaucrats as the Senate during an impeachment hearing.  The Supreme Court enforces the constitution, the Senate deals with the individual.

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: The recall process should be mandatory. Administrators stand for recall if a majority of editors call for it, and the bureaucrats believe that the call is legitimate.  The arb board could also recommend an administrator for recall, but cannot enforce a recall without the approval of the bureaucrats.

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 do not favor a reconfirmation process.

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: With such a large community, the concept of "trust of the community" is flawed.  No administrator will ever have the full trust of the community.  As distasteful as it sounds, the admnistrator must meet the community expectations, whatever they may be that day.  Not allowing adminstrators to vote in the process will help ensure that the new admnistrator has the trust of those without the bit.

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: Self nominations must be stopped. They are the primary reason that RFA is seen as a goal.  Prospective administrators must fulfill minimum requirements, and then be engaged with the community enough to find one person to nominate them. They must then be able to subject their history to scrutiny, and must be able to convince non-administrators that they should be awarded the bit.  Nominators must be held fully responsible for the actions of their nominees - They must seriously evaluate the appropriateness of the candidate and only nominate as if they themselves are willing to be sanctioned if the administrator is recalled.  Certainly any nominator who nominates a recalled administrator will be put to greater scrutiny next time he/she nominates somebody else.  Anybody can endorse an caniidate - the nomination should be open for discussion for a period of time prior to voting.  Voting should involve only non administrators should vote after exhaustively reviewing the editing history of the candidate (surely there are some mediawiki tools and scripts that would help with this process).

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 04:03 on 26 September 2008.