User:Indubitably/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!

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: First let me say that RFA should be somewhat daunting. Adminship can be stressful, and admins need to be able to handle that stress. So to want RFA to be a completely smooth process is unnecessary. However, the harassment that is so often common at RFA needs to end. Qualified candidates who have managed to piss off a group of editors while working in a specific area should not fear going through RFA because of what that group may be allowed to do. There's also too much of a tendency for pile-on opposes. A select few editors who comb through contribs looking for one damning incident to pounce on, then others pile-on per that. Until the community 1/ puts a stop to editors poisoning RFAs with their personal agendas and smear campaigns, and 2/ realizes that people make mistakes and begins to allow candidates to learn from them, there will be little way to fix this problem.

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: NOTNOW is a completely acceptable alternative to SNOW. The latter being quite bitey. It's not our job to coddle the sensitive. If someone clearly unqualified applies for adminship, despite the messages currently in place to discourage it, and they are offended or otherwise put off by the wording of NOTNOW, that's not something we should be concerning ourselves with. We've got more important issues to sort out.

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: There's no fixing stupid. The number of co-noms doesn't matter in the least, in any way, whatsoever. There is absolutely no real difference between putting a nom statement up as a co-nom or down as a strong support. This is just another example of people finding a reason to bitch.

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: Questions should be specific to the candidate. Stupid questions, such as "Why are bananans yellow?" should be removed immediately and the asker warned about disruption. Common questions, other than the first three, should be avoided unless there is a particular reason the candidate should be asked, as these are typically easily researched and, thus, the answer is mostly meaningless in judging the candidate. What would be better is if these common questions, such as about specific admin tasks, were customized for each individual RFA; for example, using a different example for each candidate so that they are unable to search other RFA's for the answer.

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 obviously unfair. "In one word, is Jimbo Wales the sole founder or co-founder of Wikipedia?" This is a trick question. The "correct" answer is "Yes." However, candidates who lack cleverness won't get this, thus either of the obvious two answers will garner opposes. As cleverness is not a requirement (tho, perhaps, desired) for admins, this is an unfair question. As for questions directly related to the candidate, see my response to the previous question. Obviously stupid questions that are not related to adminship, as well as questions that are personal in nature, should be removed by any admin. Other questions that are borderline inappropriate should be removed by any 'crat. At the very least, 'crats should not only have the ability, but should be under the obligation, to remove all unnecessary questions from RFAs. Not only can it be disruptive, but it can be a timesink for those wishing to participate in the discussion, who are then forced to read through a bunch of crap to inform themselves.

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: Explicitly prohibit incivility and personal attacks. Such comments should not be struck, rather completely removed, as they too often serve to poison the discussion. Genuine badgering should be removed from the RFA and placed on the talk page of either the RFA or the opposer. Inappropriate badgering, which would basically be harassment, should be dealt with accordingly, and not on the RFA. Comments should remain to the point, and diffs should be required for all great claims. In the issue of opposers who don't care to take the time to dig out diffs, they should limit their comments to generalities. If they want to get into specifics, diffs should be required. Much in the same way as we require sources for negative information in BLPs, else the info be removed, diffs should be required for negative claims made in RFAs, else they should be removed, immediately, by a 'crat.

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: Greater rationales are surely preferred. Otherwise, 'crats should give less weight to simple votes, support or oppose. RFA is not a vote, it is a discussion. While simple votes should not be discounted, they should certainly be given less weight than those from editors who have taken the time to thoroughly explain why they are voting as they are. I think a great improvement would come from the requirement of editors to show that they have actually taken some time to vet the candidate.

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: Indeed they should, as I've detailed above. In addition to actively clerking throughout the process to remove inappropriate questions and comments, I believe a detailed closing statement would be beneficial, particularly for those in the discretionary range, and for those it should be required. I would love to see 'crats specifically note what votes were dropped as weightless in order to ward off such votes in future RFAs. Such rationales would also serve to ease concerns that 'crats have closed in a manner that ignores the community and instead relies on their own wishes.

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: One sentence, templated, for any candidate to use. It should be allowed on project space, but not talk pages. It should read something like "Example is currently up for adminship."

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: The problem is the ever-changing requirements for RFA. What was required a year ago is not required now; and what is required now is not what will be required in six months. Coaches can be effective in preparing a candidate for RFA by guiding them through administrative areas and helping them learn those areas. However, this leads to opposes for participation in the "admin mill". I did not find coaching helpful because I was not interested in learning all the various areas. Personally, I think candidates should do what they enjoy doing, and if they show the trustworthiness and character to be an admin, I think they should go for it and it should be granted. The programs aren't the problem. The problem is the new requirement for candidates to know every administrative area. It's not necessary. They can learn later if they feel like it, but they're not required to do every task, or even know how. Coaching should be an allowed option for those who feel they need it, but votes should not be based on this in any way.

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: I think post-RFA mentorship is fantastic. I had a mentor to help me after gaining the tools, and I asked lots of questions to other admins after. To have assigned mentors or an assigned "school" past the NAS, but an actual group that is dedicated to helping out the new admins is a wonderful way for new admins to learn the ropes without feeling stupid or being nervous about asking. I often offer my talk page to new admins in my congratulations messages to them. This is important. We all need to be helping each other.

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: While AOR is open for abuse, not everyone listed in it would go against their promise. So, let me first note that any oppose cast because someone has promised to include themselves in AOR is both pointy and disruptive and should not be given weight in the end. Now, RFCs and ArbCom cases can be horribly time consuming. There really should be an easier way for admins to be desysopped when it is obvious that issues are coming up. It's clear that abusive admins can skate past ArbCom, so clearly the community needs some way of desysopping an admin that is either not in AOR or refuses to uphold their promise. Perhaps a request on WP:BN which lists the concerns, detailed with diffs, and if there is consensus after a 'crat chat that there is indeed a legitimate abuse of the tools that warrants a possible desysop, then an RFA is initiated for the admin in question.

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: Making AOR mandatory would be nice. The problem is that some admins want to be stupid and put up completely impossible criteria, which casts them in a very immature light. A nice alternative is that such criteria become part of the RFA process. Candidates put up their criteria during their RFA and, upon success, any changes may only be cosmetic unless community input is involved or changes are otherwise approved.

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: I think a governing body should be placed. People trusted by the community to oversee recall criteria and processes (c & p). In the case of clearly bad faith c & p set by an admin, or none at all, the defaults should be used. This body—preferably consisting of admins with strong, well-constructed criteria of their own in place—should approve the c & p that are placed on the AOR list and any changes should also be approved by them. If a candidate makes unapproved changes to their c & p and they are then recalled, it should default back to the last approved version.

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: Someone noted somewhere to do reconf RFAs on the one year anniversary of their RFA, then less frequently for subsequent years. Current admins would go through such an RFA one year after their next anniversary following implementation of such a process, and candidates should basically be judged on their actions in that year of adminship. This could only work if 'crats took a more active role in clerking RFAs to remove bad faith participation and also if the community stopped making RFAs personal.

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: Criteria should be hammered out by the community and it be set. This bullshit of one person supporting a candidate for something while someone else opposes for that same something is utterly counter-productive. Certain things should be off the table. AOR, as noted above, should not be oppose-worthy. It assumes bad faith to think a candidate would not uphold their criteria. Such bad faith opposes should be removed. At the same time, as my RFA examples, some people support for participation in a Wikiproject (in my case, GA), while others oppose solely for that. Should not be allowed. Criteria does not have to be extremely detailed, but more than what we've got spelled out now.
  • A general edit count. Say, between 5,000 and 6,000 edits minimum. However, if the majority of those edits are using automated tools or all almost all vandalism reversion, that counts for less. Such numbers are meant to say "We think you should have 5,000 edits worth of experience." If 3,000 of those edits are Huggle reverts/warns, then you don't have 5,000 edits of experience. Maybe Huggle experience, but adminship isn't about Huggle.
  • Experience in administrative areas. Some people require this, others don't. As is currently worded, an editor can have the community's trust without working in these areas. So it needs to be decided if this is truly to be required. I think policy knowledge is what's important. And a displayed ability to learn new tasks. For me, the difference between 5 good reports to AIV and 500 is nill.
  • Content editors vs vandalism fighters. Is one preferred over the other, or should RFA suggest that one is? Must candidates both write and defend against vandalism? I think not.
• So, obviously, all criteria is in general and common sense must apply. I think a broad discussion about personal criteria would be positive. It may get people to think about their criteria and why it is or isn't good, and from there more specific criteria can be laid out on the project page.

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: The process is jacked because of the participants. RFAs are too often free-for-alls. They've basically evolved into a firing line. Adminship has become a big deal. The community needs to realize this. Anyone still quoting Jimbo from years ago needs to get a grip and open their eyes. Those claiming adminship is no big deal are not suited for the role, because they obviously don't understand it. Candidates should be judged based on the following:
  • Has the candidate demonstrated that they can be trusted not to abuse the tools?
  • Has the candidate demonstrated that they can be trusted not to release sensitive information?
  • Has the candidate demonstrated that, overall, they have an attitude and temperament appropriate for the position?
• Of course there will be instances of mistakes and missteps, but the candidates should be judged overall. Flawless candidates, in my opinion, are more dangerous. Aside from the distinct possibility that they're a reincarnated user who has edited solely for the goal of adminship, there's also no information to go on relating to how they'll recover from mistakes, how they'll handle fallout, and how they'll deal with damage control. It's important for the community to look past the mistakes themselves and look at the bigger picture. That will make for a much smoother process.

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 18:42 on 23 September 2008.