User:Jayron32/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?
 * Response: I don't see this as a problem. Adminship should be somewhat selective, regardless of what Jimbo or others say the intent of adminship (that its "not a big deal"), it can be stressful and require a certain level of commitment.  A candidate may be minimally qualified "on paper", but if there should be some further application and vetting process before we approve them.

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: One should make a distinction between joke or clearly underqualified candidates (like those with 1 months history editing, or with no real article edits, or new users) and borderline cases. The instructions already indicate the de-facto standard minimum requirements for passing RFA; if an applicant doesn't meet those then caveat emptor...

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: This isn't a problem from my point of view. If a candidate has widespread support among experienced admins and editors, we should not look at that as a "bad thing"... Really, if 5 people want to write co-nomination statements which add pertinent information about the candidate, 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: The standard questions are fine, and candidates should be under no obligation to answer obviously superfluous questions. If the RFA process were better oversighted (like by Beaurocrats) then unneccessary questions could be removed by them...

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: If there were some oversight of questions, such as questions needing approval from beaurocrats before going live, that might be helpful...

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: The only thing I can think of is to disallow editorializing in votes; only "support" and "oppose" votes could be posted in the voting section. You can't cherry pick the kinds of comments you want to allow.  I am not saying that we should do this, I am only saying that this would be the only equitable solution...

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: Despite my comments above, I prefer the discussion-based methods, and think the current system is not as broken as people seem to think it is. There's a big difference between a week oppose because a candidate needs more experience, and a "did you see all the conflict this guy caused WITHOUT the tools" kind of oppose.

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: There needs to be some more oversight to the whole process. Bureaucrats seem to be in the best position to provide that oversight.

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: I have no idea. Look, everyone wants their friends to vote for them, and everyone keeps an eye out for their friends when they are nominated at RFA.  Likewise, anyone who has spent any amount of time at Wikipedia has pissed people off, and are likely to get those people to vote against them.  We can't discount the votes of people just because they have interacted with the candidate 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: Admin candidates can prepare themselves for adminship by participating in admin-like duties, such as helping with the DYK/GA/FA processes, participating in XFD discussions, responding to mediation concerns, or doing any number of these sorts of things. Seeking adminship and THEN finding out what it entails puts the cart before the horse.  People should spend a few months doing the grunt work around Wikipedia before even thinking about applying...

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: We should really only have one process, the post-RFA passing process. People should find adminship because they've already been doing all the admin-like stuff (XFD, New Page Patrol, VP discussions, DYK/GA/FA processes, etc. etc.)  One should not have the goal of being an admin just to be one.

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: Issues of admin abuse should be dealt with by ArbCom directly. In the most outrageous cases (Dereks1x/Archtransit comes to mind), instant de-adminning should be an option.  In other cases, if an admin case comes up before arbitration, for cases that require some deliberation, a temporary "tool shut-off" could be in force until the case is decided.  If a case is refused by ArbCom, then there should be no sanction.  I inherently trust ArbCom to make good decisions in this matter.

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: I think recall is unneccesary. If admins aren't willing to make tough decisions, where someone is bound to get mad.  The admins that do the hardest work here are most vulnerable to spurious recalls just because they made the wrong enemies, and people they pissed off are willing to canvass and organize.  If ArbCom handles it, then we at least have a group of trusted, experienced users who can deliberate over these issues, and act as needed.

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: It can be handled by ArbCom. The recall process is unneccessary...

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: No need at all. If an admin has not abused their powers, they should remain an admin in good standing for ever.  If an admin is abusing their powers, ArbCom should have the authority to desysop them.  There is no need for further processes.

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 don't see this as a problem. If an editor is not trusted by the community at large, it shows up rather quickly at RfA.

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: This seems related to the admin coaching/new admin school above. Admin candidates should show a propensity for participating extensively in admin-like activities for some time before becoming admins.  Being a great editor is not the same as being a great admin, and we need to be clearer what sorts of activities are sought.  However, we are never going to get away from the problem of people seeing adminship as a trophy because it is even though we don't want it to be.  Anytime you create a position of greater levels of access, there is going to be the view that that increased access is equivalent to a greater level of respect in the community.  People are always going to desire that level of respect.  Some people will never understand that the position is granted because the respect already exists, and its not the position itself that confers the respect.  We can't change that by fiddling with the job description...

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 05:23 on 23 September 2008.