User:Chris Picone/RfA review Recommend Phase
A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
---|
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!
Questions
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: I think that the actual process of nominating yourself isn't that daunting, or at least it wasn't last time I checked. The process, though, is pretty brutal; you basically will get tons of people looking in every nook and cranny as to what's wrong with you, and give you a reject "vote" for silly trivial reasons, like not using edit summaries enough. How does that stop you from being responsible enough to delete pages?
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: They can't, this is kind of impossible. Saying that "In general ,our admin candidates need to be here x years or have xxxx edits" will result in them being adopted as de facto guideline. A simple reminder to think carefully and compare your time with other successful candidates should suffice. Otherwise, we just have to deal with the SNOW cases.
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: Co-Nominations are kind of unnecessary. A strong support will suffice, really. Why is it that they feel the need to be "as important" as the nominator?
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: The questions are pretty harmless, I think. Though they can get numerous, you can only learn more about an editor that way, I guess. There's no real way to stop stuff like "If your friend was a vandal would you ban them?" from popping up without being rude or opening up a system that shuts out hard 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: Trick questions are horrible and are just another way of assuming bad faith. They're baiting the admin candidate into a trap to make them look fallible. They should be straight with what they want to know.
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 don't know, but this is a big problem. Well, that and Wikipedia's somewhat "never forgive, never forget" attitude toward candidates. Editors change and grow over time, and then you get these long winded opposes for one little slip up or two here or there, perhaps even only a few edits in. It's understandable to deny someone with a history, but it's impossible to change the "mood" of rejecting someone on the first sight of a flaw, then bandwagoning onto that. Personal attacks arise from that.
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: The current system is a hybrid, but I think it should be more of the first method. This encourages, and forces, voters to think carefully about each candidate so they can give a clear rationale for each one. Votes with no rationale should be removed, IMO, and not counted toward a "count" if used at all.
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 must state how they interpreted the voting process in their close. This is very important as it provides another layer of accountability. Optionally, advice would be cool too!
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: As long as he advertises to most everyone that the candidate works with and does not actually ask to be voted for, I see no problems with this. The editor's "coworkers" may have valuable insight to add!
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: Fix the RfA program so that you don't need a coach to pass it.
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: The admin coach should hold onto the candidate until a little after the RfA passes, if it does, and the new admin school can be dropped.
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: They are adequate, in my opinion. I don't see how RfC isn't facilitating of admin abuse cases.
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 makes sense that this be mandatory, but it opens the door for just but unpopular admins to be prodded out of the system. I don't know who would run it, I haven't been to Wikipedia in awhile.
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: Totally called it! Oh, well... it can't. Whoops.
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 don't see how this could be done without wasting a lot of time for another process. If an admin is generally not ding well, an RfC can be opened. This IMO isn't needed.
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."[1] 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: It is more than adequate to have a "vote". That's what the vote is for: to see if people trust you.
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: About the trophy thing: That's kinda inevitable, right? All admins by nature are higher caliber editors or else they'd never get nominated. The trophy image is unfortunate as admins are mostly janitors, but it's like getting a promotion in that the job up ahead makes itself look glorious.
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
- ^ "Requests for adminship". 2003-06-14.
This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 03:53 on 28 September 2008.