User:SoWhy/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: Well, most likely by clear statements by crats that they will disregard opposes which have nothing to do with adminship. People are most likely daunted by opposes which have nothing to do with the tools they are requesting. Generally I think it's not bad that it is daunting because it prepares prospective admins that they WILL be met with criticism all the time.

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: Well, I have seen some SNOWs and NOTNOWs. The RfA page is quite explaining and tells you everything you need to know about the RfA process. If people refuse to heed those instructions, do not review old RfAs but just go for it, then no matter what you write, you will not get rid of such closures.

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 do not see any concerns. If multiple people want to nominate an editor, forcing the editor to choose amongst them will only create a sense of you-like-them-more-than-me. You can of course create a guideline saying that a cap like in the question is heeded but you should never try to force anyone.

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: Well, I think they shouldn't. If 100 questions are needed to find the answers about things that bug you, then 100 questions should be asked. A nominee with a userpage that explains their standpoints (like "deletionist") needs less questions than one that has no WikiPhilosophy on his userpage. So, no, artificial limits are no use, each case should be treated as unique as possible.

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: Let's answer this step by step:
 * Trick questions: They should be allowed - the user asking such questions will not need them to decide how to !vote anyway, so there is no harm. The closing crat should take the "tricky" nature of those questions into account and disregard !votes based solely on them, which is more effective.
 * Quotation-only-questions: Why not? It shows that the candidate is capable of researching policy if needed, a skill that is more important than many others.
 * Direct questions: Well, those are the best ones of course, no comment needed.
 * Generally questions should be asked liberally, with few exceptions, see below. Questions and their answers usually do not stop those with malicious intents to !vote in a specific way but allow the closing crat to identify those users easily.
 * Off-limits: As the scope of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA tells us, questions should follow those policies/guidelines as well. All questions should be off-limit that are not trying to determine a candidate's views and knowledge but their personal data. Questions about age, race, gender, sexuality etc, those questions that have nothing to do with how the candidate edits, can only serve to manipulate people.
 * Removing questions: I think any editor in good standing should remove questions that were defined as "off-limits" beforehand and any crat should be able to remove questions they deem harmful.

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: It can't. Those things are merely human and can occur on any discussion page on Wikipedia. We have mechanisms in place for such things, like dispute resolution, Wikiquette Alerts etc. They just have to be used as if it were any other noticeboard (like on WP:ANI).

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: Well, we already have WP:NOT. It is a policy and thus should be followed on RfA as well. While just voting shows that you are in favor of the candidate, it does not really help building consensus. A "Support"-vote is helping a bit, because it shows general support for that editor, but it is not a popularity contest. It is not hard explaining why you choose to side the way that you do. Raw numbers can never be the factor alone and a 90% support RfA should be able to fail as well as a 60% support RfA should be able to pass.

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: Bureaucrats do a fine job as it is. They should not actively use their status in ongoing requests other than to do admin-like tasks (i.e. trying to maintain order if needed). If they discard votes during an ongoing RfA or comment on users, it will only spark more controversy. I think crats are fine choosing how to handle those problematic votes when closing the RfA. They should write an explanation when the outcome is not clear or controversy can been expected. But they already do that quite well imho.

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: There is a template for it, RfX-notice. I think it fulfills the purpose quite well.

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: If it was done AFTER an editor was promoted. Fact is, as Xenocidic noted once, that most admin things are learned after you can access the tools and everything. There should be a mentorship program for new admins to learn them how to use the tools correctly (was proposed at WP:NADM). I think that would be more helpful than a school that only seeks to prepare for 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: I do not think WP:NAS a good thing pre-adminship because I think it's wasted time if the coached editor does not pass RfA afterwards (and maybe leaves the project) and can't try things out himself. Also, I do not think people should pass RfA because they were taught just for that (see above).

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: N/A

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: It shouldn't. Recall is per definition non-mandatory because other processes exist already to take the sysop-bit from an admin against their will.

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't. Pure and simple. Recall is a commitment but it's also a choice that the admin made. He cannot be forced to stand by it if he concluded that he made a mistake choosing to be open to recall.

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: I am dead against such things. The admin bit is given out without any timer. If "reconfirmation" is needed, it can be done on a case-to-case basis through WP:RFC/U or WP:RFARB. But forcing a good admin who does great work to face a new RfA or similar every few months/year will just waste time that could be used more effectively doing something else.

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 do not think it is possible. It requires simply more people to participate in RfA to get a wide range of opinions but you cannot force people to participate and those who are interested, already do so.

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 RfA is not broken as many claim but just needs some fixes. It should be made easier for editors to pass it so that it cannot be seen as a "trophy". If we really want to believe it to be no big deal then people should not try and make it sound like it. Opposes based on the fact that someone does not write FAs, that they only work in certain areas, that they "don't need the tools" - all those should be discarded actively, but that means having to change peoples' minds. There is no way to force people to judge candidates only on grounds of "will they abuse the tools?" but we should spread this way of thinking.

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 20:42 on 22 September 2008.