User:Iss246/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. I would like help in my request to have the occupational health psychology entry placed in the psychology sidebar. I am at loggerheads with Ward3001.

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[edit]

Selection and Nomination[edit]

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 what I am asking is this: that Occupational health psychology be included in the psychology sidebar. Selection bias can be countered by averaging the responses of many qualified individuals.Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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: ...

To be qualified to make a judgment, the individual should have read in psychology. The individual could have a bachelor's degree or higher or is just well-read in psychology. I don't exclude anyone who does not have degree. If a person has read about psychology, that would be satisfactory.Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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: ...

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and learned about it from my son. I don't know anybody whom I could nominate. I certainly would not nominate my son.Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The RfA Debate (Questions, Election, Canvassing)[edit]

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: ...

I don't know that answer to this question. It is the kind of question I have not previously confronted.Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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: ...

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: ...

If an entry is important to a writer, the writer will be emotionally involved. A writer wants to see his or her efforts bear fruit. It is difficult to stay relaxed in a situation where editors want to chop or alter or deflect the writer from a goal. I think a certain amount of tolerance of heat has to exist. Editors have to understand that.Iss246 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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: ...

This is the first time I have had an issue come before editors. When I earlier had a disagreement over some item in the health psychology site with another Wikipedean, we worked it out between ourselves. Ward30001 and I have a fundamental disagreement.

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: ...

The individuals involved though must have some knowledge of the subject matter. It would be helpful if two or three individuals who had knowledge of psychology were part of the group, and the group could lean on them for background.

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: ...

I don't know the answer to this. I am not familiar with the administration of Wikipedia. Although I'm learning, I don't have an opinion yet.Iss246 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Training and Education[edit]

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: ...