Difference between revisions 240911592 and 240912932 on enwiki

{{RREVlinks}}
Welcome to the '''Recommendation''' phase of [[WP:RREV|RfA Review]]. In this phase, you will be asked to offer suggestions and proposals to address specific concerns and problems with the current [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|Requests for Adminship]] process. 

(contracted; show full)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: 
..The only solution I can think of would be to stop people from writing more than "support" or "oppose".. basically accept that RfA is a vote. it would become less daunting if it were just a vote rather than a discussion where editors mercilessly scrutinize each others edits, pick holes and rip each other to pieces over (in some cases stupidly trivial) mistakes. But apparently, voting is evil.

'''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: ..A good start would be to just make it plain that people with <500 edits who've been editors for less than three months are basically not allowed to nominate themselves, because all such requests will be snow-closed anyway. Not in the name of bureaucracy, just a reflection of reality.

'''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: ..Don't have much of an opinion on this. Perhaps no co-nominations should be allowed after the candidate has accepted the nomination. I've seen this happen on a few occasions.

===The RfA Debate (Questions, Election, Canvassing)===
<!--Questions-->
'''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: ...

(contracted; show full)
== Footnote ==

{{Reflist}}

<small>This question page was generated by {{tl|RFAReview}} at 15:00 on 25 September 2008. </small>

[[Category:Wikipedian Recommendations to RfA Review|{{PAGENAME}}]]