User:Mailer diablo/R

Prelude

 * Why do I contribute to Wikipedia?


 * I stumped upon and start editing here after I have left a previous community that eventually collapsed. This was back in 2004.


 * Prominent members, over there, were particularly protective of their work. They insist that they are fully copyrighted, and refused to allow any form of sharing without written permission. As a result, several conflicts arose from the result of copyright tussling. In some cases, work could not be release for others to appreciate, because parts of the work that was borrowed from these prominent members considered it too rubbish to justify the permission - they feared that they would lose pride if it were to be released using their material.


 * What doomed the community, was the revelation that there was a cabal. These prominent members set up an exclusive club, through internal links, and hoarded the knowledge and technical know-how to themselves. This meant that any beginner who wanted to had a hand at creating their own work, simply find the learning curve too steep and too tedious to get anything started. They were also usually treated with contempt by these prominent members.


 * At Day One of editing at Wikipedia, I saw neither of the above problems. I saw that people are more than happy to share their contribution and knowledge to the world freely. And people preferred to collaborate and build up the encyclopedia together, offer assistance to each other where needed, rather than engaging in gated communities.


 * Wikipedia saw its success where the previous community failed, because it has these two values. As long as these values remain, I am here to stay and contribute to the free encyclopedia for the long term.

RfA Review
When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:


 * 1) Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
 * If there is a candidate who has sufficient understanding of the process, and got a hand in how to write for the encyclopedia, he should run a nomination for RfA. I believe that was what my nominator had in mind when he offered me a nomination. People used to oppose my RfB for that, but I still think that nomination, where it is not foreseen that the candidate is controversial, should not be a big deal.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * There has been over-reliance of admin coaching as a formal institution, and more recently as a requirement on RfA. I believe that admin coaching should be an informal process where editors get a more well-rounded exposure on Wikipedia, in a casual environment where editors get to have fun and collaborate to build an encyclopedia.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * I noticed that nomination these days tend to be very explicit. My belief is that contributions should speak for itself. Appraisal does help but I think editors still go for the substance as it was for the past.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * As a veteran on AfD, this is a no-no. Canvassing has become synonymous with some form of lobbying and producing distorted debates. Sometimes, other editors well-intention to inform others of your RfA might even be mistaken. I believe editors find RfA sufficiently important today to check on it every now and then.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Too may cooks questions spoil the broil. For best results, any candidate can take advantage of the basic questions by answering them truthfully. The three basic questions should give us some clue on the possible style of the editor. It was there since 2004 for a good reason.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * What election?
 * I believe that supports and opposes do have a legitimate reason even if they are not explain. In today's climate, it is best that they are put forward in detail for better understanding and evaluation of the candidate. We have to understand though, that not every editor is able to put their statement through with such brevity.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * Unless the candidate is seeking appraisal (which I think other processes might be a better place), nominations should be withdrawn by candidate once he/she realizes there is little hope of passing. In today's climate, leaving nominations open only causes more agony for all parties.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * See next section "On RfBs...".
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * See Administrator coaching
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Abusive admins are too difficult to be removed. There has to be a simpler process, but so far none of them have materialized. I saw through how Aaron Brenneman got this whole thing up. As far as I am concerned, this is the closest process that we can get.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:


 * 1) How do you view the role of an administrator?
 * In Japanese sites, admins tend to call themselves as a form of janitor. Wikipedia-tan illustrates this perfectly. We should be servants to the community and the encyclopedia, not some kind of snob official who gets to kick the commoner. A positive editing experience makes for a better environment for all, good publicity to visitors and a better incentive for people to contribute to the encyclopedia.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Administrators should be well-rounded. They specialize on something, but they should have a hand at different components of the encyclopedia to have a broader view of its internal workings and how it may affect others. I notice there are some administrators who have little experience on content-writing and then get themselves into hot soup when dealing an AfD and then subsequently gets dragged into a content-wrangling between editors.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes, and I approve of my experience!
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes. First under RfA, and then RfB. Of course, as time goes on, RfA process becomes more elaborate and sophisticated as we speak.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * There should be an easier process for removal of abusive admins. That's the only shortcoming we have so far. Some say RfA is a horrible process, but for now it's the only best thing we can make use of in the absence of a working alternative.

RfA Recommendations
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: RfA has to change its perception that it is full of drama, a popularity contest, etc. Particularly candidates should feel that they are measured by bureaucrats and fellow editors in a motr objective and measurable manner, rather than something that is perceived as arbitrary. Also, I think there should be encouragement of more pro-active nominations on lower-profile candidates but equally qualified candidates to run for adminship.

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: I suspect many of these self-noms are Too Long;Didn't Read (TL;DR). Perhaps a mini self-checklist sufficiently prominent might be able to help.

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 personally think two is more than sufficient, and they should ideally address what the original nomination didn't highlight. (e.g. In 2008 US Presidential elections, VP candidacies of sorts that fill up the deficiencies of the P-nominee) Anymore than two would invoke TL;DR on several editors. I think it is up to the candidate to exercise self-restrain.

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: Candidates should take full advantage of the first three questions to provide information about themselves. A few more wouldn't hurt, but it is tiring for a candidate to answer 30 questions; That would be more like someone running for arbitrator.

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 has little to do with the candidate's editing merits, and consistently cause controversy on an otherwise uncontroversial RfAs, that demand personal info (it's not OTRS/CU), or arbitrary should be off-limits.

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: With bureaucrats holding the keys to the RfA, perhaps they might want to be more pro-active in putting out fires correctly, without making things worse. We've put them in the hot seat, they should be good enough to know that water extinguishers aren't supposed to fight electric fires.

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: We've used to have a rather straight-vote system until Carnildo; like AfD, there is no turning back now even if we wished to. The status quo is the best we have, even if it seems broken, in the absence of a viable alternative.

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: Simple. Per B3, if the bureaucrats wish to use discretion or go off convention, they'd jolly well know how to provide a very good rationale/explanation. Otherwise, when in doubt, don't promote (as promoting is irreversible). Crats are the first line of defence against abusive admins. Failure to do so will only help contribute to the "brokeness" of the RfA. (Also see "On RfBs...")

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: Don't think canvassing is necessary. Everyone feels that the process is important enough for themselves to head for RfA from time to time.

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 Coaching should be more informal and opposers on RfA should not put on record that they should go for it; rather they should suggest coaching the candidate on his talk page after the 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 complimentary? Are there common themes or elements that could be shared between the two processes, in order to improve the effectiveness of both?
 * Response: They are supposed to be complimentary, right? And informal as well.

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 Community should be given more bite; RfC is currently toothless, most of these go to ANI instead. I did propose a few regarding de-adminship, but all have been shot down. ArbCom is too slow to deal with matters, unless they speed up there is no other viable alternative to deal with admin abuse.

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: Yes, make it mandatory if possible. Let the crats decide, it's a social role anyway.

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: You can see my previous proposals. (grins) They all have been rejected. If you would like to revive them somehow, let me know.

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: Trust is the cornerstone of adminship. How it is defined varies across different editors. Perhaps getting them to reconcile on the idea may help.

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: For the record, adminship should not be a trophy. Any admin who does that is indirectly doing a disservice to RfA as it would make others feel like it's "a big deal".

On RfBs...
On RfBs and Bureaucrats

1. Social or technical role?
 * In terms of power, a steward has more abilities in permissions than a English Wikipedia bureaucrat does. The latter has only three of the abilities (+bot, -bot, +sysop) that stewards have, and notably bureaucrats do not have the ability to undo the sysopping of an editor.


 * However, when it comes to appointments it is much more difficult for a bureaucrat candidate to succeed than a steward! RfBs historically pass almost unanimously (~90%, even then the crat has the right to reject), while steward elections are fixed at 80%. Running for RfB has standards comparable to (or even higher than) ArbCom candidates, and the RfB bar continues to raise by the day. In essence, a RfB candidate has to please almost everyone with very differing ideas on RfA in order to pass his/her RfB.


 * This phenomenon may indicate that bureaucrats are serving more of as a social role than a purely technical one. In a classical era the consensus of RfAs are determined by voting percentages, notably Cecropia setting the minimum pass at 80%. The job scope in the past was more of a technical role as "counting the votes"; bureaucrats once was considered no big deal.


 * Since the consensus/deletion reform (VfD to AfD, July 2005), bureaucrats have set new precedents (some particularly controversial) by defining consensus as at their own discretion - percentages were practically out of the window. Since then, bureaucratship has transformed to more of a social role, with editors very careful to choosing who to determine consensus. No editor was promoted to bureaucratship since June 2006. (Ed : At time of writing. It was dry for six months.) Several objections on recent RfBs come from arbitrators, and even bureaucrats themselves.

2. RfA ≠ AfD
 * Requests for Adminship (RfA) and Articles for Deletion has certain similarities in process, but are not completely homogeneous. Overrides for AfD decisions/consensus has three non-negotiable policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) in which they have strict criterion. Neither of these are applicable to RfAs; fundemental consensus of the community on RfAs should not be overridden.

3. RfA reforms
 * Only bureaucrats currently have the true power to reform RfA. As they have taken on the social role, the bar can be raised or lowered, or/and the process changed as they wish - the community is at the crats' mercy. Unless there is direct intervention from ArbCom and Jimbo (which is highly unlikely), or there is sufficient community pressure for the bureaucrat(s) to resign, there is no other way to get him/her/them to budge.

4. Admin abuse


 * Bureaucrats are the first line of defence against admin abuse. It is implicit that the responsibility shall fall on the bureaucrat should he/she willfully allows this line to be breached, the newly-promoted admin goes on to abuse his tools, and creates a whole bunch of mess that ArbCom would not have to pick up the pieces if the crats' did their job properly in the first place.


 * Fortunately all cases of desysoppings so far are circumstances not foreseen by bureaucrats at time of promotion. However, it may be a matter of time before an editor is controversially promoted and admin abuses occur. In such a case, the bureaucrat responsible may well be hanged by public opinion and jeopardize the entire RfA process as it would be seen that the line of defence has failed. Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Proposed_decision

5. What really is consensus, then?
 * Consensus