User:Waggers/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: Automate selection based on length and volume of activity (easy to measure), quality of contributions (a bit harder to measure - perhaps scanning the user talk page history for warning templates etc. as an indication of poor contributions, block history etc.) - essentially have a bot nominate potentially good candidates, then have a team of volunteers check through the bot's selections, removing false positives and nominating the remainder automatically.

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: If the above proposal is taken forward, ie. nomination happens almost automatically, then unqualified candidates should know to wait until they are selected by the automatic process. Perhaps manual nominations should be closed if the bot works well.  When candidates are nominated, the instructions on how to prepare for the process should be clear.

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: Again, if nomination is done by a bot (with the aid of a volunteer committee), this issue should go away on its own.

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: I don't think there should be a limit to the number of questions a candidate can be asked - it's important to explore the relevant issues without such arbitrary limits. That said, if people are just asking the same question in a different way over and over again then the repeat questions should be removed.

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: RfA can be daunting and trick questions are a bit unfair in the circumstances. Questions on policy (either on specifics, or yes/no questions like "Do you have a good understanding of WP policy") don't help as the candidate can easily look up the relevant bits or answer in the affirmative.  The only way to trully assess whether a candidate has a good grip on Wikipedia's ethics and policies is to look through their history and, where necessary, ask questions about particular incidents for clarification of what they did.  Actions speak louder than words.  General and hypothetical questions on policy should be avoided altogether.

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: Each "vote" should speak for itself, with no need for anyone to question it or argue about it. Nobody should be discussed on an RfA page other than the candidate themselves, and even then it should be their editing that is discussed, not anything personal about them.  Bureaucrats and possibly existing administrators should also be able to suspend a nomination, protecting the page for a while so that things can calm down if they get heated - with the deadline being extended accordingly.

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: A hybrid. There should be a rationale with each vote, BUT it's ok for that rationale to be the same as a previous one ("per X").  Nobody should discuss other people's votes or attempt to get them changed other than by arguing their case when they add their own vote.

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 don't think any votes should be removed unless they're blatant vandalism or obvious errors (such as voting twice by mistake). Consensus is not a majority vote though - bureaucrats should be permitted to ignore the vote counts and pay attention to the arguments that have been presented if they are particularly persuasive.  As with AfD and similar processes, if all the votes are one way then a summary isn't really required, but if there are views both ways then a closing summary should probably be given.

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: The obvious thing would be a template to put on users' talk pages (and perhaps article, portal and project talk pages) with the neutral wording already written. Perhaps a bot, similar to suggestbot, could scan the candidate's history to select the most appropriate users, projects etc. to contact rather than, or as well as, the candidate choosing who to tell.  That way the selection will be more neutral rather than the candidate just picking people they know will support them.

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 don't think admin coaching is necessary at all. Either a user is sensible and mature, in which case they're a good candidate, or they're not.  I don't see the point in trying to teach someone common sense (which is essentially the fundamental requirement for an admin) - if they don't have it, they shouldn't be nominated.

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: To be honest, I don't really see the point of New Admin School either. As long as the various administrator instructions are well written (and, by and large, they are) and easy to find (currently less so, but improving) and admins know they can always post on WP:AN if they're unsure about a decision, then that's sufficient.  If an admin needs more than that then frankly they shouldn't be an admin.  Ultimately, just like normal editing, most admin decisions are reversible, so (to coin a phrase) it really is no big deal.

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 current system is fine as it is. Admin abuse can be reported to AN/I or other locations; admins can block the offending admin pending desysopping if necessary - it's all quite easy and straightforward.  The process doesn't need to be any more convoluted or bureaucratic.

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: In a way, all admins are open to recall - if someone has a problem with them and reports it to the necessary forum, the community can discuss it and decide on the appropriate action, which may be desysopping. Again, I see no need to change the status quo (other than getting rid of the redundant "open to recall" category etc.).

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: Get rid of it and use more stringent measures such as reporting admin abuse to the appropriate forum. If an admin is not abusing their powers and has not become untrustworthy, there's no need to recall them.  If they are, WP:AN/I or WP:AN should be able to deal with it.  Nothing additional to that is required.

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: If an admin has been away for the project for a considerable amount of time - say six months - then I think there should be some vetting to make sure that the account hasn't been compromised and/or the person hasn't had a change of attitude towards the project etc. (perhaps an automatic desysopping and renomination after a further six months). Continuously active admins whose actions haven't been called into question should not require reconfirmation though - that would just be bureaucracy for the sake of it.

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: Fundamentally, if an editor has been active for quite a while, editing quite a bit, and hasn't screwed up (newbie mistakes aside) then they're trustworthy. Most of that is pretty objective and could be determined by a bot looking at the candidate's editing history plus any warnings and blocks they've received.  RfA could almost skip the community discussion bit with a bot presenting objectively determined suitable candidates to a bureaucrat for consideration - although I think that might be a bit extreme.

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: Adminship is not something to brag about or lord over other users - but it IS an honour and a privilege, an achievement to take pride in, and I don't see a problem with users setting themselves the goal of achieving adminship if that's how they want to contribute to the project. And in order to assess a candidate's suitability for adminship, of course it's a form of editor review! I really don't see what there is to be concerned about there.  Here's a summary of the suggestions I've developed by answering these questions - I'm not 100% sure about all of them but here they are:
 * Nomination should be automatic, based on a bot's assessment of users' edit histories (obviously using criteria pre-agreed by the community).
 * Each vote should have a rationale, but it doesn't have to be a unique rationale - repeating an earlier argument is fine.
 * Other people's votes should be seen as sacred - they are not to be argued with or edited by other users. Use your own vote and rationale to make your point, don't argue with other people.
 * A bot could select users and talk pages that the candidate has interacted with a lot to post notifications of the candidacy, to ensure that this is done objectively and neutrally.
 * Admin training and mentoring isn't really necessary as long as admin instructions are clear.
 * All admins' behaviour can be called into question and discussed, possibly resulting in desysopping. There's no need for "good" admins to automatically be reviewed.
 * Admin accounts that have been unused for a while should be desysopped as a security measure.

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 20:55 on 23 September 2008.