Revision 240915679 of "User:Filelakeshoe/RfA review Recommend Phase" 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. 

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Ultraexactzz 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: 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: Get rid of the questions altogether, imo. They're supposedly "optional" but candidates who don't answer them tend to get sledgehammered with opposes. Replace the questions with a space for a candidate to write a statement about themselves, like a pitch, and save any questions from other editors for talkspace, where i feel it seems less controversial if the candidate chooses not to respond to something.

'''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: See above - if such questions are in talkspace, it shouldn't matter so much.

<!--Voting-->
'''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: See answer to question A1.

'''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: See above

'''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 should only have to get involved in very close call situations, such as requests with about 300 votes total which stand at 75%. In such requests there should be considerable discussion over the controversial issues in talkspace anyway, even if all 300 people did just type "support" or "oppose" without rationale.

<!--Canvassing-->
'''B6'''. '''68''' editors noted that a limited form of [[WP:CANVASS|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: A message on the candidate's userpage inviting editors to "express their opinion" (NOT "support me") is fine. And no spamming user talk pages.

===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 [[WP:ADCO|Admin Coaching]] be improved to focus more on adminship itself?
*Response: "Admin Coaching" is unnecessary. Adminship is not a big deal, anyone who's been around in good faith for long enough can learn how to press a few buttons without the need for "coaching".

'''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: Above

===Adminship (Removal of)===

'''D1'''. Editors noted that the current voluntary Admins open to Recall process is redundant to [[WP:DR|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: There should be a simple process where the community decides whether a controversial admin should stay or not, similar to RFA. As I said, adminship is not a big deal, if anything one of the main things I blame for the admin process becoming such unnecessary serious business is the fact that one often has to undergo a month-long arbitration process to sort out any slight controversies.

'''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: ...

'''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: ...

'''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: ...

===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."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&direction=prev&oldid=1035650|title=Requests for adminship|date=2003-06-14}}</ref> 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: ...

'''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: ...

==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 ==

{{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}}]]