This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
---|
The Request for Adminship or RfA process is the mechanism whereby the Wikipedia Community develops consensus on nominated candidates becoming administrators. Wikipedia administrators have access to a number of tools that can aid in maintenance. Potential candidates pass through a series of mandatory and optional stages before becoming an administrator.
Over time, the RfA process has been criticised in a number of different ways. The criticism has become a perennial topic of discussion for many years but has not resulted in any significant changes to the process. As such, a process review has been arranged so that the current process can either be validated or so that clear recommendations for improvement can be made.
The review will consist of multiple phases and is currently at Collate: Recommendations from editors are now being reviewed and analyzed, with the goal of generating specific policy proposals.
Requests for adminship or RfA is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators, who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. The process has been in use for several years and has come under frequent criticism. WP:PEREN states that although years of discussion have taken place on the process, no consensus has been reached on exactly what elements are problematic or how they should be remedied.
This review is intended to be a complete examination of the full end to end process, including supporting and ancillary parts. Using this method, a full appreciation of the process can be gained and each milestone or gate's impact on other sections can be understood. Through this, it is hoped that a unified set of recommendations can be reached.
In a rare departure for Wikipedia, certain phases of this review will not contain an element of debate. These are the Question and Collate phases. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, to allow each contributor to present their opinions without fear of criticism or for the weight of their comments to be increased or decreased based on their skills at debating. Instead, common themes and ideas will be pulled out and brought forward for the report. Secondly, to allow contributors to remain anonymous if desired.
As a protection against providing undue weight to a concept, contributors will be encouraged to provide references and examples when providing their feedback. In addition, all feedback will be collated, meaning that similar thoughts and suggestions will be grouped together.
The review will analyse the entire RfA process end to end, including all milestones, points of concurrency and points of termination. The review will involve multiple phases conducted over a number of weeks. At the conclusion of the review, a report will be presented on this page detailing recommendations for the RfA process.
Contributors to the review will have the option to be recognised under the GFDL. Should a contributor wish, they will be able to submit their feedback anonymously.
Baseline
Question
Reflect
Recommend
Collate
Present
The following sections are deemed in scope of this review
The following sections are deemed out of scope of this review. These may be reviewed separately if required.
Candidate selection
Administrator coaching
Nomination and co-nomination
Advertising and canvassing
Debate
Election
Withdrawal
Declaration
Training
Recall
Any editor can participate in contributing to this review, both administrators and non-administrators. Exposure to the RfA process in any form is preferred in order to gain insight and feedback based on first-hand experience.
Although the Question Phase is now closed, editors will be invited to read and comment on the report prepared during the Reflect phase, as well as generating suggestions based on the report's findings in the Recommend phase.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
---|
The Request for Adminship or RfA process is the mechanism whereby the Wikipedia Community develops consensus on nominated candidates becoming administrators. Wikipedia administrators have access to a number of tools that can aid in maintenance. Potential candidates pass through a series of mandatory and optional stages before becoming an administrator.
Over time, the RfA process has been criticised in a number of different ways. The criticism has become a perennial topic of discussion for many years but has not resulted in any significant changes to the process. As such, a process review has been arranged so that the current process can either be validated or so that clear recommendations for improvement can be made.
The review will consist of multiple phases and is currently at Collate: Recommendations from editors are now being reviewed and analyzed, with the goal of generating specific policy proposals.
Requests for adminship or RfA is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators, who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. The process has been in use for several years and has come under frequent criticism. WP:PEREN states that although years of discussion have taken place on the process, no consensus has been reached on exactly what elements are problematic or how they should be remedied.
This review is intended to be a complete examination of the full end to end process, including supporting and ancillary parts. Using this method, a full appreciation of the process can be gained and each milestone or gate's impact on other sections can be understood. Through this, it is hoped that a unified set of recommendations can be reached.
In a rare departure for Wikipedia, certain phases of this review will not contain an element of debate. These are the Question and Collate phases. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, to allow each contributor to present their opinions without fear of criticism or for the weight of their comments to be increased or decreased based on their skills at debating. Instead, common themes and ideas will be pulled out and brought forward for the report. Secondly, to allow contributors to remain anonymous if desired.
As a protection against providing undue weight to a concept, contributors will be encouraged to provide references and examples when providing their feedback. In addition, all feedback will be collated, meaning that similar thoughts and suggestions will be grouped together.
The review will analyse the entire RfA process end to end, including all milestones, points of concurrency and points of termination. The review will involve multiple phases conducted over a number of weeks. At the conclusion of the review, a report will be presented on this page detailing recommendations for the RfA process.
Contributors to the review will have the option to be recognised under the GFDL. Should a contributor wish, they will be able to submit their feedback anonymously.
Baseline
Question
Reflect
Recommend
Collate
Present
The following sections are deemed in scope of this review
The following sections are deemed out of scope of this review. These may be reviewed separately if required.
Candidate selection
Administrator coaching
Nomination and co-nomination
Advertising and canvassing
Debate
Election
Withdrawal
Declaration
Training
Recall
Any editor can participate in contributing to this review, both administrators and non-administrators. Exposure to the RfA process in any form is preferred in order to gain insight and feedback based on first-hand experience.
Although the Question Phase is now closed, editors will be invited to read and comment on the report prepared during the Reflect phase, as well as generating suggestions based on the report's findings in the Recommend phase.