User:Davidwr/RfA review Recommend Phase

'''Note: I am no longer interested in adminship  This page is kept for posterity and in the hopes it will be useful to others who might want the bit. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  10:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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?
 * Response: I'm not sure it should be countered. The act of going through some process exposes ones character and it also exposes one to some of the negative feedback one will get as an admin, leading those who might think they want to be an admin to withdraw rather than become an admin only to stop using the tools because they get too much negative feedback.  For the exceptionally-qualified-but-shy candidate, a group of well-respected editors who co-nominate and/or strong-support him should grease the skids.  However, this should be the exception, not the rule.

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: As part of the nomination process, have a short list of documents that prospective admins should read, and a statement along the lines of "Before you apply, please read all of these documents. If you don't understand them, ask for assistance.  If you apply before you understand them, your RfA will likely fail."  Among these documents should be an essay called "What is an admin, really?" or something similar, which outlines the communities expectations of administrators.

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 think it matters. Nominators and co-nominators will give reasons for their nomination, and anyone giving strong support should also give reasons.  It's the reasons and the number of supporters, not whether the supporters are officially co-nominators or not, that get my attention.

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: Group questions by similar type and ask editors to pick one of a class. For example, have two questions that deal with handling abuse in response to a decision, and ask prospective administrators to answer one.

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: Questions that ask people to quote policy should be rephrased from "what is the correct way to do X" to "According to current policy, the correct way to do X is Y. If this policy were opened for discussion, can you think of a better way to do X?  Why is this way better than the current way?  In what ways could it be worse?"  As far as bad-faith questions, RfA participants should be encouraged to flag questions as "questionable-faith" and bureaucrats should seriously review questions flagged as such as soon as possible.

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: Bad-faith questions can be handled by flagging and review as above. Other RfA feedback which is uncivil says more about the contributor than the person under RfA.  Unsigned comments which are negative should be bot-signed, and bureaucrats should have the authority to strike through blatantly uncivil comments made by anyone or somewhat uncivil comments made by fly-by-night accounts.  The strike-through would be a sign that the comment will not be used in the decision-making process.  Comments, even uncivil ones, which contain substance should not be struck through.

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: Rationales should be required, but "per previous editor's comment" constitutes a repetition of the previous editor's comments and should be allowed. However, it should also be discouraged because the previous editor may change his comments.  Simple votes without explanation, while allowable, should carry little weight.

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: Except in obvious cases like "successful per nom and overwhelming variety and weight of positive responses" or "unsuccessful per overwhelming variety and weight of negative responses," a detailed closing rationale should be required. Such a rationale is useful in both future RfAs by the same person and as something future RfA candidates can look at.  As far as removing or discounting problem votes - since these aren't votes, it's the bureaucrat's responsibility to evaluate the RfA as a whole as well as evaluate the sincerity and value of each contribution at the conclusion of the RfA.  Other than removing or striking content that will have no bearing on the outcome, bureaucrats who will be making the decision should stay out except where needed for technical reasons.  Bureaucrats who intend on participating in the RfA as an editor should not participate as a Bureaucrat.

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: It would take a coding change, but having history logs show active candidacies to those editors who chose to view them would help. In the meantime, posting a list of current RfAs in the Wikipedia Signpost or Goings-on would help.  Another option is to allow canvassing pro- and against provided the location, canvasser, and time are prominently listed in the RfA itself.  It will be easy to spot a candidate who is "soliciting votes" as well as one who is being solicited against.  The fact that a candidate is strongly solicited against indicates either a personal issue or perhaps that he's made a few more enemies than the average editor, both of which are valid RfA issues.  More valuable is how the candidate reacts to such criticism.  If this is too much, then limiting each person to "one non-user-talk-page plus one user-talk-page canvas per RfA" would force them to think carefully where to advertise.  A wise candidate would canvass on a project that he participated in.

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'm not sure how I feel about this. I would recommend a minimum one-month/100-edit or so wait after the end of admin coaching before proceeding to adminship.  I would recommend every prospective admin who does not go through coaching to go through an editor review.  In fact, I would formalize this as Editor Review for prospective administrators with a focus on identifying inter-personal relationship issues, understanding of policy, balance of editing across article/project/Wikipedia/other/Talk pages, etc.  Forcing this would eliminate many premature/NOTNOW RfAs and identify strengths and weaknesses that would be highlighted in a future RfA.  It could also be a potentially longer process than an RfA, allowing for feedback over time.

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: Admins who successfully complete an RfA should be encouraged NOT to use their tools except as part of training until they've been through both new-admin training and been given the opportunity for mentoring. Experienced editors who have watched other admins at work for years may decide to skip formal mentoring.

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: I don't know. Personally, I think all administrators should be subject to a retention RfA every year or two or better yet, forced to step aside for 6 months then run again.  I also think inactive admins, those who do not edit and cannot be reached by email for several months, should be de-admined as a security precaution.

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: Either force everyone to retire or run again periodically, or have all admins maintain a "recall page," with a forced retention election when the number of recently-added editors petitioning for recall crosses some threshold.

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: As long as it is voluntary, it should not be amended. Rather, if someone goes back on their word, or someone goes back on their word and uses "bad faith call for recall" as the grounds, that is an editor dispute and should be handled using existing dispute resolution.  There is a human assumption that a good-faith promise to do X if someone else does Y is valid only if Y is done in good faith.

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: Do it annually as an RfA, but with the most recent RfA subst'd in. If someone was made an admin after a 100-1-0 "for" !vote with 50 "strong supports," it will take a lot more evidence to strip him of his tools that someone who "barely made it."  To overturn such a strong nomination, it would take 100 or more editors "against" or 50 of the original supporters to change their !vote.  The upshot is that most reconfirmations will be pro-forma, since there won't be nearly enough opposition to overturn the support carried over from last year's RfA.  However, it will be an opportunity to force someone to retire if the need arises, or to undo a marginally successful RfA that turns out to be a mistake.  If you go this route, a petition signed by enough editors to, when added to the previous RfA, would yield less than 50% support would generate an early reconfirmation RfA.  There would have to be some reasonable time limits though, like at least 3 months apart, etc.

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: There will be no perfect solution. I don't think major changes are required to improve this, other than perhaps to better-advertise RfAs in progress and encourage editors, particularly established editors, to participate in an RfA or two every month.

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: It should be a high-impact editor review and then some. Part of the reason for an RfA is to focus attention on the candidate and let him consider whether he is really ready for the job.  As far as a "trophy," I see it more as a duty:  Every veteran editor should participate in Wiki-housecleaning.  Some housecleaning tasks require admin tools, some don't.  Whether he happens to have edit tools or not at a given time isn't important, but as an editor rotates through the various places to serve the project, sooner or later the editor is going to need administration tools to get the job in that part of the rotation done.

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 00:12 on 23 September 2008.