User:Orfen/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: Perhaps there could be some sort of minimum edit count and time needed for adminship. This would prevent SNOW and NOTNOW and would make sure that candidates are sure that they are ready. While I don't believe there should be edicountitis when selecting candidates for adminship, it could prevent a lot of disappointments and prevent some editors from leaving.

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: Perhaps a message could be added where the candidate writes their acceptance saying that this process can sometimes be heated and stressful. Something that will warn the candidate that the process won't be a walk through the park and it would be in a noticeable place.

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 think a cap should be placed on the amount of co-nominations a candidate can have. Without a set amount, all of Wikipedia could potentially nominate someone.

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: Perhaps in the place where candidates accept their nomination there can be a message saying something along the lines of "include a little bit about yourself such as how you feel on issue X".

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: I think questions should only be based upon a candidates own experience and edits. If there was a lack of policy knowledge, the contributions would show and then a question could then be asked. Not every candidate should have to answer policy questions each time. I think bad-faith questions should be removed through consensus on the talk page, with the candidate's and nominator's opinion not having much effect.

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: Bureaucrats could monitor the RfAs and then more arguments and personal attacks can be avoided with someone stepping in.

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 think the current process is rather effective in determining consensus. I think it needs to be vote-based so we can see a majority of approval throughout the community but I think all oppose votes need to include an explanation and supports should contain a thought out explanation but needn't be as specific as the supports.

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: I think Bureaucrats should have more transparency with the community and explain the factors that led to a successful or unsuccessful nomination. I think Bureaucrats should have a more active role in the process and make sure the process goes smoothly. There are a lot of comments made that do not need to be made in an RfA and those should be monitored so they don't go out of control turning into personal attacks.

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 do not agree with canvassing of any fashion but if limited canvassing was to be done a template should be made just saying something along the lines of "I am currently a candidate for adminship. Please discuss your opinions at the page."

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: Perhaps it should provide examples of certain things a candidate might find during admininship and have the candidate say how they would respond in certain situations. This could provide more insight to how the candidate would perform as an admin by providing direct examples of the daily tasks an administrator.

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: I think if new admins are provided with a more experienced admin as a mentor everyone would benefit. It would provide someone for the new admin to go to for help and someone to look out for the contributions the new admin makes make. This could also be a refresher of some things for the experienced admin as well as helping the new admin.

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 think Recall is not redundant and should not be removed. I think it should become more regulated and mandatory though.

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 open for recall should be regulated and have regulations decided upon by the community. This should then be mandatory and every admin should be open to have their tools revoked.

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 if once an admin decides to be open for recall it should be a binding contract and be enforced by a Bureaucrat if made. As for bad-faith calls, if admins have that concern then it should be brought up to a Bureaucrat and they could have the ultimate say.

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: Perhaps after the first 3 months as admin have the community hold another sort of "RfA" for the community and see what the community thinks of the job the admin is doing. If community consensus is that they are doing a bad job then the tools should be revoked, if not then the admin can just go on without the tools without another reconfirmation. I don't think it should be able to be said though that they didn't use the tools enough. Abuse should be brought up, but if there is no abuse then they should keep the community's trust. Alternatively, Bureaucrats could review the admins contributions as sort of a "performance review" and then the decision is made transparently for the community to see as to whether they recommend keeping the tools.

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: As long as the process doesn't forget consensus, then I feel the process will continue to do a good job in ensuring the trust of the community.

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: I think it needs to be clear that adminship is not a trophy. It is more work and something you can do to better help the community. As a whole, the process has gotten good at pointing out the mistakes of candidates and it stops those that aren't ready and lets in those that are.

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 22:19 on 24 September 2008.