User:Peteforsyth/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: By improving the process. I share this concern, but don't believe there's any shortcut or quick fix. So, let's dig into the details…

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 have not really seen this problem (not to say it doesn't exist). Editors seeking adminship need to familiarize themselves with what to expect -- in my experience, candidates being far underqualified is not a significant problem. When it happens, it doesn't demand a great deal of the community's time, and it's probably an important check on the editor's expectations.

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 share this concern. I find it helpful when an editor I know shows enough support to nominate. I don't see why co-nominations are a problem.

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: I would point out that the candidate may ignore questions, or explicitly decline to answer them. I'm not terribly concerned about the number of questions, but I am disappointed in the quality of many of the questions I see. (See next response)
 * Response: Personally, I strongly dislike the ones that ask a candidate to articulate their principles in the abstract; e.g., asking whether they would favor one philosophical principle over another in a hypothetical situation. I firmly believe that the kind of good judgment required of a good administrator is something that can only be identified in real-wiki situations, and these tedious questions only serve to discourage candidates or, on occasion, attract unwarranted negative opinions from voters. One possibility would be to have a process to determine some more standard questions, and establish that certain kinds of questions are "off limits." Another possibility would be to have a place for "proposed" questions, and only have them show up on the RfA page if X number of editors endorse them.

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: I agree that this is a problem, but would point out that it's not a problem specific to Wikipedia. All political processes seem to have this issue; political campaigns in the U.S. definitely expose candidates and their families to a kind of scrutiny and invasion that is neither useful to making a good decision, nor fair to the candidate. I think individual attention from conscientious editors is the best tool to combat this. I try, for instance, to call out inappropriate comments when I see them, and move discussions with disruptive voters to my own or their own talk page. I would like to see more experienced WP editors engage in this kind of approach; setting the right kind of example, I believe, is the most powerful instrument for substantive change in this area.

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: Boy…I'm not sure I can answer that one. I think finding a genuine consensus would require a process that ultimately excludes many of the participants, as it really takes a lot of time and effort to assess a candidate's quality in a thorough way. That might not be a bad thing, but it also might tick off those who want to be able to participate in important decisions without expending a great amount of effort. I don't think I'd favor a simple vote count; I like the system that allows the closing bureaucrat to weigh the points made, and in many cases the raw numbers tell a very different story from the discussion generated.

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: The less clear the consensus, the more important a bureaucrat's thinking is. I'd like to see a fairly detailed summary, maybe, whenever adminship is granted with less than 75% support, or denied with more than 60% support. (Those are pretty arbitrary numbers, but hopefully the general idea is clear.)

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 think that canvassing is generally acceptable, if it's clearly disclosed, and if others are able to weigh in or canvass in other areas. It's when it's done without informing other participants that it becomes problematic.

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 have not participated, I can't comment.

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: I have been pretty happy with New Admin School, and have never had any difficulty asking more experienced admins for guidance. I feel that we should have some faith that we are promoting people with the technical and social skills required to seek out the kind of guidance they need; I'm not inclined to worry about this a whole lot.

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 the voluntary recall thing is pretty dumb, and I declined to offer it in my own RfA. I definitely think it's important to have some kind of process from removing the buttons, but I've never encountered a situation where it seemed necessary, so I can't really comment on the specifics. It would seem the dispute resolution process is at least reasonably well suited to this task, 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: Whatever, as long as there's plenty of transparency and opportunity for community input.

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: Something more formal, and an end to the silly voluntary stuff.

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: Sounds like extra bureaucracy to me. Was a case made as to why this needs to be done?

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 think a fairly vague expression of the qualifications is a good thing in this case, leaving it to individual judgment to how to apply the principles in any specific RfA. The one thing I'd add is that an administrator's actions should reflect well on the project to the outside world, if and when they attract attention.

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: Many voters seem to disregard the no personal attacks policy in the RfA process, and are not held accountable to that policy. Noting a candidate's behavior, in general, seems legitimate; drawing negative conclusions about the motivations behind it, for the most part, I view as a violation of this important policy.
 * Finally, I feel that it is very important to have administrators who disclose their real names. I am by no means saying that all administrators should do so; but the project is better represented in the wider world when there are a number of readily-identified real people involved with it, and also people often behave more responsibly when the possibility of their actions being linked to their real lives is involved. Many of the concerns (about how grueling the RfA process can be) are even more problematic, to the degree that they discourage real-name editors from running for RfA. I'd love to see processes implemented that provide incentives for people to use their real names. Possibly even to the point of denying certain responsibilities to unnamed admins.

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 05:31 on 23 September 2008.