Wikipedia talk:RfA Review/Archive/Pre reflect

Starting Discussion
So, the draft proposal is up and ready for review. Is this felt to be the right strategy? Is the information contained in it accurate and neutral? Is it likely to deliver any results? What are your thoughts?

These are just some of the starter questions to get the ball rolling. Any input is greatly appreciated. Gazimoff Write Read 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think this will be a useful tool in gauging the community's perception of the process as it stands. Whether it generates a consensus to change is another thing. As to the process of this review, I wonder if it would be more effective to look at the perceptions of the current system, and summarize those, before gathering recommendations for changing the process. I think that the thoughts on changing may be different once we have seen how people feel about things now. Kevin (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a two step process, although it will likely draw things out. The important thing will be to disentangle identifying the problems from proposed solutions, as people are by their nature helpful and want to help solving problems. I'll post more on this tomorrow. Gazimoff Write Read 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've modified the process to include this

RfA reform
It would be nice to have more administrators. This is a function of two things:


 * Getting more people to try to be administrators
 * Getting more people to pass RfA

At the moment, few people with more than about 10,000 edits ever try to be administrators. It just is not encouraged. That could be changed.

Also, a lot of people are nervous about supporting weak candidates for RfA because of the feeling that once someone is an admin, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. Therefore I think a 6 month probationary period would be good, with a mentorship and some training. If the candidate passes that, then they could be appointed, possibly by a committee to avoid the drama of a second poll.

There is a feeling at the moment that admin candidates should be lily white. So few editors that have been involved in controversial issues ever apply. And we are impoverished because of that, because they have good experience to bring to the process. Perhaps we could have a quota system for certain kinds of admins, like those who have worked in controversial areas?

I am working on some evaluation methods to help with evaluating admins for their balance and contributions.

I think that admin coaching is not something to be sneered at. It is something to be encouraged and fostered, so that those who come up for RfA know as much as possible. We should look to successful admin coaches like User:Durova and follow some of her suggestions and methods.

I also of course would put in a plug for my User:Filll/WP Challenge as part of training of admin candidates, and helping them to be more familiar with a wider range of situations that arise on Wikipedia than they would be normally.

This admin training and coaching can also help with helping candidates navigate the difficult problem of ethics and correct procedures. I notice that some candidates are tripped up by running afoul of ethical problems. Perhaps having candidates study previous successful and failed candidacies to learn what to do and what not to do could be helpful.

I wonder if rather than designate success as being 70 percent or 75% or 80 percent, if we should designate success as being the level exceeded by the top 40% of the admin candidates in the last 6 months or so.

Should we consider secret ballots?

Should we allow as much canvassing as possible, since it is almost impossible to stop it?

Should we choose voters by a random scheme as Slrubenstein suggests?

These are a few ideas to start with.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The random scheme thing gave me an idea for a rather radical restructure. How about:


 * Interested editors can apply to join a potential admin pool. This is done through a process similar to the existing RfA process, but with a lowered bar to what we have currently (say, 50%+1 support means you are entered into the group).
 * At the beginning of every month (or other pre-agreed time period), a process is run that assesses which members of the pool are currently "active" (say, having a predefined number of edits in the previous time period).
 * Of the active pool members, 50% are selected at random to be "active" admins have the tools for that period. All other members of the pool are "inactive" admins and have the tools temporarily suspended.  Optionally, rules can be built in so that no one editor can serve as an admin for more than say, three consecutive time periods.
 * Editors may remove themselves for random selection for any given time period. An active admin may also relinquish the tools at any point, they will still be considered in future draws, and a replacement admin is selected at random from the currently inactive admins.
 * Optionally, A process is begun to recall or suspend people from the pool, again, the threshold for this is reasonably low (50-60%?). If suspended, an active admin's tools may be revoked immediately, or he may not be eligible for selection at the following or subsequent draws.
 * Optionally, and to make adminship less of the "holy grail" that it is now, 'suffrage' is reduced or removed for active admins, perhaps in terms of XfD voting, RfA voting, etc. This would obviously not affect Foundation, Meta, or other wiki voting rights.  Inactive admins have full voting rights throughout enwiki.


 * As I said, it's pretty radical, but it eliminates the problem of it being impossible to get the tools off of a bad admin (because chances are they'll lose the tools in a few days anyway), makes it possible for RfA voters to take a chance on potential admins that might make the cut, and removes the inactive admin issue entirely. Possible issues involve developing an impartial and random process for the draw, having someone actually add and remove all those admin rights, and of course selling the system to a skeptical public.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC).


 * I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. As per the detail on the article page, we should make sure we agree how to carry out the review first and that the information we have to start with is correct. Then we can look at finding out what the currently perceived problems with RfA are. Once we have that information, then we can start looking at solutions. It's going to take a number of weeks to get to that stage, so there's no need to rush. Gazimoff Write Read 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No we should not have secret ballots, this is not a democracy, people need to justify their position if people want to challenge it. We should not allow canvasing, this is not a democracy and we don't pick our admins by who campaigns best. We should not choose voters by a random scheme, we work by consensus and everyone has the privileged of giving their opinion. Beyond the innate flaws in these ideas I also do not see how any benefit would come of them. 1  !=  2  17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So in other words, just keep everything as it is, there are no problems whatsoever. Ok.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Other words? Ya, if by "other words" you mean completely different words than what I said I guess you could get that. But if you are going on what I said, then I made no such suggestion. Rejecting a few ideas from left field does not mean that no ideas are acceptable, or that there are no problems. 1  !=  2  13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I believe the point made was that the changes suggested are absurd considering the numerous possible changes that actually make sense. I agree with Until(1 == 2); every single one of those ideas is downright absurd.  Just throwing some out off the top of my head:
 * Eliminating RfA questions
 * Moving questions to the RfA's or the user's talk page
 * Adding more standard questions and discouraging users from adding their own questions except when it applies to that candidate's situation specifically
 * Reformatting the RfA system to allow for discussion for two or three days prior to voting, followed by a five-day voting period
 * Have administrators agree for the first three months of adminship, to stick to specific areas of their choosing; if they don't stick to those areas, their adminship can be removed. Sounds like a dumb idea in a way, but it would aim to eliminate "You've never posted to WP:AIV, so you can't be an administrator".
 * Encourage bureaucrats to take into account whether a large portion of supporting or opposing users are part of a voting bloc, to discourage the clique voting that occurs.
 * Require all voters to elaborate on their reasons for supporting/opposing in order to have their opinion counted fully.
 * None of these are perfect ideas (in fact, some are flawed, and others I downright disagree with), but they're what I think of when I think of RfA reform, and they're at least meant to solve at least one issue that some people think exists within the current system. Changing the people involved won't do anything, and if anything, will piss the community off when you see a candidate you like fail, or a candidate you don't like pass, in a close RfA that you have no control over, because you aren't a voter this month.  For quite a few reasons that I don't have time to elaborate on now, secret ballot wouldn't work that well for such a large process.  Ral315 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential questions

 * How do you view administrators? As technical people doing housekeeping tasks? As arbitrators of disputes and arguments? Or something else?
 * What attributes do you want to see in an admin?
 * What kind of editor is/is not suited to be an admin?
 * How do you feel about the number of current admins?
 * Have you been involved in a request for adminship (as one discussing a candidate)? If so, what was your experience?
 * Have you ever run for adminship? If so, what was your experience?

I'll sure I'll think of more during the day. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more in terms of asking editors to look at each step of the process and consider the positive and negative aspects of each, providing examples and references where possible. That way we can work out which parts of the current process work well and which are in need of overhaul. Gazimoff Write Read 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Norm and RFA
I feel that at this point that no matter what is done to change the RFA process itself, it has become in its current state so ingrained into the minds of much of the participating community that a change such as this is merely a formality that doesn't do anything about the larger, underlying issues. The fact of the matter is that RFA is a poor process not because of the process itself, but because of the manners in which people partake in it. This is not likely to be changed any time soon. Comments? &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  02:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Disappointingly, there appears to be a significant number of editors who view an RfA as the opportunity to get their own back for some perceived slight. Is that what you mean? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That, and possibly other things. I can't possibly fathom why everybody would oppose or support, but it's not always for the right reasons, and that's not something that can be changed.  Sorry if I'm wasn't being very clear above. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  02:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing question
The thing that seems missing when I look at the RfA review project page is the question of what the purpose of RfA is. It seems implicit in the current wording that the purpose is simply to decide who "will become" an administrator, which seems to be a tautological definiton. So which is it?
 * 1) The purpose of the RfA process is to determine whether the candidate is trusted by the community. This statement of purpose goes back to WP:ADMIN (English Wikipedia practice is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the trust of the community, as demonstrated through the Requests for adminship process.) and is a good argument for the current referendum format.
 * 2) The purpose of the RfA process is to determine whether the candidate is suitable | qualified | a safe pair of hands | delete as applicable. If we're to change the process, I think it needs a redefined purpose in order to focus the discussion and any subsequent change. A newer statement of purpose might, for example, be conducive to making RfA more like an examination (or driving test) and less like a referendum. Perhaps that change is underway already (twenty questions, anyone?), and if so, perhaps it should be recognised and formalised... isn't that how policy changes?

Just throwing some thoughts out. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At present, the process is supposed to determine if there is a consensus to either make to person an admin, or not make them an admin. One problem with that is that there is no room for any compromise. A better way might be to reach a consensus that CandidateX needs to bone up on WP:CSD criteria for the next 2 weeks. If after that time their tagging has been accurate, he/she will be promoted.
 * The problem with the 20 (or more) question approach is that for many questions there is no correct answer. I could imagine having more standard questions and the editors voting on whether the candidate gave their "right" answer for each one. If you win 75% of the answers, you get the admin bit. Sounds a bit complicated though, we could call it Admin Feud. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Baselining the Review
Currently, the review process is being baselined. That means that that we need to focus on a small number of key areas:
 * Ensuring that the review process is correct
 * Ensuring that the information on the current then stage adminship process is correct
 * Developing appropriate questions in order to target focus on particular areas of the process and ensure that perception of what the process should achieve is borne out by what it actually delivers.

Having a review structure is important, because it means that the maximum amount of information is gathered in an stable approach, making it easier to identify common thoughts and opinions. It also means that recommendations can be presented with carefully researched reasoning. I've already tweaked the review phases so that we gather opinions on the current process from as many people as possible, either via a subpage or via email where appropriate.

I'm also looking at developing questions in order to understand thoughts and opinions on the current process, but I want to encourage deep and meaningful answers to questions that point to particular examples or references in order to provide further information. To this end, I was considering asking contributors to write about each section of the process, considering their opinions, experiences, positives and negatives as well as providing examples or references in order to demonstrate their viewpoint. Once we build up a solid picture of what people feel is problematic with the process, we can then start developing solutions. It is important to do this, as while some have expressed concern with some areas of the process, others feel that it is not the process itself but the way it can be used that causes problems. It has also been suggested that we examine what the role of an administrator is percieved to be by contributors.

When looking at the process, it's important to review it end-to-end in order to avoid additional gates or checks being inserted into the process where a modifiction of existing parts will perform the same function. This review approach should look at avoiding instruction creep if at all possible.

With all that said, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the points above in order to move the review out of baseline and into the next phase of the review. Many thanks, <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 09:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the revised review method is good. The hardest part, as you've indicated will be keeping the recommendations out of the question and reflect stages. I'm not sure about leaving out admin removal. I think it may be an important part of many editor's thoughts, particularly in the recommendation stage. Perhaps it can be combined with recall. The summary of the current process seems accurate. Some may view candidate selection and nomination as the same thing, although the distinction is made clear. I think it is also important to gauge the expectations of the outcomes of the process at some stage, both those that are desired, i.e. good admins, and those that are not, i.e. excessive drama. All in all, I think it's an excellent project, off to a good start. Do you intend to frame specific questions about each stage, or allow a more essay-like response to the sections much as they stand now? Kevin (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I left admin removal as out of scope for this review as the process has a number of different paths that can be used. Of course, contributors may feel that specifying criteria for removal as a condition of accepting a candidate's nomination. This is a valid comment and one that we can comment on at the end of the review process if appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if, once this review is complete, we didn't start working on reviewing admin removal, but trying to do both at the same time may make something too large and unwieldy to manage within a reasonable timescale.


 * Question wise, I'm looking at using open ended questions in order to encourage long responses and fuller information. I think that your comments on what people expect to get out of the RfA process is reasonable, as well as what we are looking for in an administrator.


 * It's also been suggested that we should look at using WP:CENT I'll look at archiving this talk page then adding it to the centralised discussion list later today. Many thanks, <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read  10:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents: I think the reason that the poll in April showed a lot of frustration with RfA even among admins is that you have a lot of nice and competent people who keep trying to fix the wrong problem. The problem is that, by the time some people pass their RfA, they are way past the point where they have demonstrated their loyalty and commitment and basic competence, and the fact that they're overdue for some kind of vetting by the community generates frustration for them and their friends.  Some wikiprojects fill this need, but it's not enough for everyone.  I'm wondering if the tension around the RfA process would drop if we transferred some of the time we're spending on RfA's to Editor reviews and other vetting processes.
 * The corollary is: if the problem is more about something that non-admins feel they need than about a broken process, then to fix the problem, talk with non-admins. A discussion at WP:VPP might be helpful. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that you raise some valid comments, and I agree with your statement that in the past, well meaning editors have tried to fix either the wrong problem or proposed a solution that generates more problems than it solves. The concept behind reviewing the entire adminship process instead of focusing on key areas or coming up with proposals straight away is so that we understand what the thoughts and opinions of the current process is before considering any solutions. As long as the review method is valid and generates a large amoun of participation, the conclusions should be able to draw themselves and provide a solid basis for any reccomendations. Hope this helps clear things up. <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the problem?
I am looking at past RfAs, and I have to say that most of them were closed correctly based on the public's level of trust. While I often see people complaining that some RfA was closed contrary to how it should be, I don't see these people agreeing on which RfAs was closed wrong. Some people insist the system screwed User:A, others think User:A got treated fairly but User:B got a raw deal.

Now there certainly has been some shabby behavior by people, more so than recently at RfA. But that is not RfA, that is people. Any new system will just have the same old people in it, and if they way to be snipy then no system will prevent that. I think the problem at hand is just human nature and it really will not go away by changing how we put on the show.

I really have yet to see a demonstration that the current system is failing, something that people can come to consensus over as being a problem. 1 !=  2  13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there seems to be a groundswell of opinion that the RfA process is problematic. It is important to understand that a possible outcome of this review is that the existing RfA process is validated as being the best solution available. The current problem is that there is no evidence that this is the case, as the RfA process has never been reviewed or audited. That's why what we're setting out to do has value either way. Lets look at what the review brings to light Changes may be reccomended, but equally they may not. At the moment, it is an unknown.<b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 21:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To start with, I do not think we produce enough Admins. That much is pretty widely accepted. And I think that we could do better in preparing our admins for service, in terms of training etc. That is probably true as well. We probably could try to devise better methods, or more consistent methods for filtering out people who are a little immature, or who have some judgement problems. We also should probably have a more fault tolerant system that does not demand that all candidates be the same and all candidates have not risked their records by editing in difficult areas.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of users say it's problematic but no one has yet been able to define it to the level where they could come up with a better process. See WP:PEREN. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the discourse on this topic is generally at a pretty low level. Whenever people see a result they disagree with, they tend to scream "See, this proves the system is broken." What I see as a fundamental problem is two main things: 1) a whole bunch of people show up at RFA giving utterly stupid reasons for their supports or opposes. As a general rule, the bigger the total number of votes, the lower the average quality of those votes. 2) Since it is de facto very nearly a vote, these stupid reasons skew the results. 3) Crats occasionally say they weigh the strength of the arguments, but we have no consistent way of knowing which arguments they find more convincing than others. Friday (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The job of the 'crats is to determine consensus. We see a similar process at AfD, the differences being:-
 * When an AfD is closed, it's customary for the closer to post a short summary explaining how they came to their conclusion - and in the case of a contentious AfD debate, often not-so-short.
 * If the conclusion is felt to be wrong, there is a process (DRV) whereby discussion can be re-opened and, if necessary, the decision overturned.
 * I think that adding #1 to the RfA process would increase its transparency, and would either increase editors' faith in the bureaucrats, or clarify other changes that might need to be made. No opinion on adding #2 at this time.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the Question Phase for the review will be finishing in a few days time. Once that's done, I'll be compiling a full report on what the combined thoughts and opinions are. This should be a great starting point for starting to look at solutions. I can really appreciate the enthusiasm, but I have to ask if you could hang fire just a little longer, until the report is released, then feel free to add your suggestions and ideas in when it's out in the wild. Many thanks, <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed question list
I would like to propose asking contributors to respond to the following questions. The questions can be placed on an article subpage, with any queries being handled here. Please let me know if there are any suggestions or ammendments you would make before I set this up and start gaining responses.<b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 09:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If everybody answers these set of questions, that subpage would get big very quickly. I propose that each contributor make a subpage on their own userspace, and transclude it onto the subpage here, to keep file sizes low. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a copy-edit for spelling and such. It looks good. I agree that it should be answered by participants on their own subpages and then linked here.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on the transclusion. I'm also keen to allow people to email in their answers if they prefer, in order to give them some anonymity <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 20:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The transclusion and email seem like good ideas. We'll need some instructions for how to do that for contributors. As for the questions themselves, I'm happy with them. Kevin (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gazimoff, I think these questions look great - comprehensive, survey style. I like the idea also presented here to add anonymity (via email), although I personally won't be doing that. One hesitation that I think you'll run into once presenting this to the wider community for input (answers), is our inherent wiki-laziness. Perhaps when presented a short sentence on the top that says basically "answer any or all of the following questions" along with "there are no wrong answers"? My 2pence. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Email seems like a good option as does transclusion, but if you get 100s of users transcluding pages then it's going to take years for people with slower internet connections to load the page, could we have a list of each user's subpage on which the answers are? And could we have a general field at the bottom saying something like 'Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?'? (sorry forgot to sign) <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif; color:DarkRed">Harland1 (t/c) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that transcluding, if expecting hundreds (even dozens) of answers, is not optimal. A list of links of responses to user subpages should suffice without transcluding them.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your suggestions. I'll update things over the next 24 hours. I'm looking at placing all this at a subpage ( RfA Review/Question) once it's all set to go and update the main article page to point people at the questions subpage. As well as asking people to include a link to their responses on their user subpage, I'm also debating including the anonymous responses as subpages of my own userspace. What are your general opinion of this? If it's acceptable, I'll include it in the instructions. Thanks again, <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The anonymous responses could iether be on subapages of your's or on subpages of this? It would clutter up your userspace rather as there may be several anonymous ones. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif; color:DarkRed">Harland1 (t/c) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, the question page is up at RfA Review/Question. Please let me know if you spot any problems. if not, I'll update the main review page and link to it from WT:RFA and maybe WP:CENT. Many thanks, <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any restriction on who can fill one of these questionaires in? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The plan is to have no restrictions at all. Once we start the Question process, anyone with an interest can participate.<b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 11:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great - I'll wait until you're live then. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've had no further feedback on the question list and today I've started the holiday that never was (grumble) it'll probably go up later today. I'll be archiving the talkpage beforehand as well. <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Section Break - Templating
I know it's late in the game, Gazimoff, but any thoughts on creating a template to generate that page, rather than copy-pasting to a userpage? I can hash something together later today, if that's an idea you like. I just think it would be cleaner to tell someone to subst RFAReview to a subpage. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've generated the template, based on the questions at RfA Review/Question. The template, RFAReview, will add the questions and instructions to a subpage when the user substs it. It also formats a link following the questions, which can easily be copy-pasted to the list of responses, wherever those might be. I'd love some input on this, as it might greatly simplify responses. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I wrote the template, it auto-generates a line of code for copying to the list of responses. When copied, it turns out thus:


 * User:William P. Formattest/RFAReview Questions added by UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence at 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The sample at that link is what the template generates, btw. There are no parameters. This will, in theory, create a chronological list of responses. It will also let anon responses be added by Gazimoff; they would simply cite him as being the one who added them to the list, for transparency. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The template could also populate a category, for viewing the list of submissions another way. That category would have incomplete responses as well, though. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To make sure I had the formatting correct, I Lorem Ipsum'd the questions. The gibberish and other text in answer to the questions is not included in the template. I also added code to throw an error if the template is not subst'd, as the questions can't be answered otherwise. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's incredibly helpful! All we'd need to do now is update the Question page with the revised process details, pointing people to the template. Then just update the main article page to say that the question phase is ready and we're all set. I'll get cracking on both of these now, with an update hopefully later tonight. Thanks once again for this! <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read  19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'd go with adding the cat. It'd give us some useful information on incomplete responses.<b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm on it. Where do you want responses to populate? And will you want multiple response pages, with one for each phase? I was thinking something along the likes of RfA Review/Question/Responses, where the text of the Questions plus instructions would be at RfA Review/Question and the list of responses could be transcluded at the bottom. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, basically, if we change the Question page to have the instructions on subst'ing the template etc and including the responses on there as RfA Review/Question, that should be fine. I'll also remove the questions from that Question page and have the template as the single copy to ensure that we have a single version running. Of course, we could have responses at RfA Review/Question/Responses then transclude it on the main Question page, providing a seperate edit history that should just contain the responses people add. What do you think is best here? <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of transcluding the list of responses, for a few reasons. First, it does give us a separate edit history, which may be of value. Second, it'll be easier to work with the responses themselves if they're on their own list, rather than scrolling past the questions every time. Third, it makes the edit link in the template cleaner, since they can edit the entire page rather than a numbered section of the questions page (which might change, which would break all previously subst'd templates). Keeping the questions the same should not be an issue, and we need the separate set of questions for people who will be e-mailing them in (maybe a plaintext version somewhere?) UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So, are we ready to rock start the ball rolling? <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If RFAReview is good, then yes; anything else we can fix later. Go for it! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Boycott
Please read User:Durova/RFA Review boycott and add your signature. This is madness. Durova Charge! 06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Durova, I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the review. I understand some of the comments you've made on your boycott page, particularly how Editor Review is currently backlogged, but I feel that the element of coaching and training is just one aspect of the entire adminship process, and that we need to examine the entire process, end to end, in order to be able to put cohesive proposals together. This initiative is radically different to the perennial proposals that have been mentioned previously, as it asks editors to feedback on their thoughts and opinions of the current process before making any recomendations. It is from the feedback of these editors that any feedback or proposal will be based.
 * I think asking people not to express an opinion on the adminship process in all its stages is a form of disenfranchisement and goes against the spirit of forming consensus. I also think it could ultimately be counter-productive - we're seeking feedback from a wide range of editors involved in a anumber of different aspects of WP, and it would be regrettable if their opinions were not included in the review due to engouraged non-participation.
 * Ultimately, there are a number of concerns on the RfA process, from training and coaching, through to canvassing, through to editor conduct during debates and elections. All of these elements need to be examined in concert in order to provide a cohesive, unified assesment on the full end-to-end process. This is the first time a full process review has been undertaken in this form on Wikipedia, and I would ask that you see it through to completion before passing judgement. Many thanks, <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 10:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Echoing Gazimoff's comments, I would note further that, for the purposes of this review, programs like Admin Coaching and training are included with the otherwise-unrelated process of RFA. This is very specifically to broaden the review of how admins are chosen. I would also invite you to read the list of responses, and note how many are not regular participants at RFA - we're getting outside opinions we would not otherwise have, and there is certainly value in that. Coaching, admin school, and related process are included in this review to get an overall picture of what happens - and what should happen - when an editor becomes an admin. It's not a discussion, but an analysis - and in that regard, I think it's a novel approach that deserves a shot at producing a real shift in priorities for RFA - which, I agree, should include extensive expansion of coaching (and editor review) processes and training. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from speculation regarding the scope and depth of my understanding. I do not start a boycott lightly; long and careful consideration went into this.  It is my reasoned opinion that strong action is necessary.  The numbers back me up.  Examine the evidence, and tell me what percentage of the people you prepared for adminship passed RFA: all of mine have.  Durova Charge! 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a key area that confuses me which I hope you can clarify. The RfA review was started to examine all aspects of the progress from editor to admin, including training through a formal coaching or training scheme or informally through mentoring. You state in your boycott proposal that you feel strongly that potential admins should be coached or trained more before they table an RfA, and I understand that. But why boycott a review that encompasses the area that is the basis for your boycott? That I don't understand and would welcome clarification on. Many thanks, <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 11:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The madness is the proposal of a boycott. Quite bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing else in a year and a half has persuaded the community to reconsider its priorities. Wikipedian consensus behaves as if training were a fringe notion.  Good training works and is scalable.  You want more administrators?  Good: hundreds of potential candidates are already lining up.  Find out from the people who are training people successfully what works, and get more to do the same thing.  Then, when the backlog of people who've been asking for help is caught up, then ask me about RfA Review.  The people I coach have been passing RFA; there's no reason for me to divert my attention away from successful efforts into low yield strategies (that would be madness).  This boycott is basically a public statement of what I'm already doing: more people need to be made aware that we already have a functional solution to the RFA problem.  Durova Charge! 06:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of some of the people you've nominated, but it'd make discussion a lot more straightforward if you could (if you don't mind, that is) name them. —giggy 07:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Several months back I did a rundown and the actual total was a bit smaller than I'd anticipated: real coaching takes time, some people need it more or less than others, and we didn't embark upon this with an understanding of it being an experiment for public dissection. You can find most of it in RFA histories, although some of the people I coached had other nominators.  Two passed on the second try after not following all of my advice the first go-around (one ran prematurely, the other was well known and controversial and was slow to address concerns).  Basically if someone is well prepared for administratorship and suitable for it, most of RFA takes care of itself.  The rest is about communicating with the voters and being genuine.  Durova Charge! 07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed... coaching takes a MINIMUM of a month, not a maximum of a month... generally 3-4 months. Coaching is a COMMITMENT on both parties and generally slows the process to adminship.  Many potential candidates could run in less than 3-4 months, but coaching is IMHO a sign of somebody who really wants to do it right.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "You want more administrators?" No, actually I don't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)