It would be nice to have more administrators. This is a function of two things:
- Getting more people to try to be administrators
- Getting more people to pass RfA
At the moment, few people with more than about 10,000 edits ever try to be administrators. It just is not encouraged. That could be changed.
Also, a lot of people are nervous about supporting weak candidates for RfA because of the feeling that once someone is an admin, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. Therefore I think a 6 month probationary period would be good, with a mentorship and some training. If the candidate passes that, then they could be appointed, possibly by a committee to avoid the drama of a second poll.
There is a feeling at the moment that admin candidates should be lily white. So few editors that have been involved in controversial issues ever apply. And we are impoverished because of that, because they have good experience to bring to the process. Perhaps we could have a quota system for certain kinds of admins, like those who have worked in controversial areas?
I am working on some evaluation methods to help with evaluating admins for their balance and contributions.
I think that admin coaching is not something to be sneered at. It is something to be encouraged and fostered, so that those who come up for RfA know as much as possible. We should look to successful admin coaches like User:Durova and follow some of her suggestions and methods.
I also of course would put in a plug for my User:Filll/WP Challenge as part of training of admin candidates, and helping them to be more familiar with a wider range of situations that arise on Wikipedia than they would be normally.
This admin training and coaching can also help with helping candidates navigate the difficult problem of ethics and correct procedures. I notice that some candidates are tripped up by running afoul of ethical problems. Perhaps having candidates study previous successful and failed candidacies to learn what to do and what not to do could be helpful.
I wonder if rather than designate success as being 70 percent or 75% or 80 percent, if we should designate success as being the level exceeded by the top 40% of the admin candidates in the last 6 months or so.
Should we consider secret ballots?
Should we allow as much canvassing as possible, since it is almost impossible to stop it?
Should we choose voters by a random scheme as Slrubenstein suggests?
These are a few ideas to start with.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have more administrators. This is a function of two things:
- Getting more people to try to be administrators
- Getting more people to pass RfA
At the moment, few people with more than about 10,000 edits ever try to be administrators. It just is not encouraged. That could be changed.
Also, a lot of people are nervous about supporting weak candidates for RfA because of the feeling that once someone is an admin, it is almost impossible to get rid of them. Therefore I think a 6 month probationary period would be good, with a mentorship and some training. If the candidate passes that, then they could be appointed, possibly by a committee to avoid the drama of a second poll.
There is a feeling at the moment that admin candidates should be lily white. So few editors that have been involved in controversial issues ever apply. And we are impoverished because of that, because they have good experience to bring to the process. Perhaps we could have a quota system for certain kinds of admins, like those who have worked in controversial areas?
I am working on some evaluation methods to help with evaluating admins for their balance and contributions.
I think that admin coaching is not something to be sneered at. It is something to be encouraged and fostered, so that those who come up for RfA know as much as possible. We should look to successful admin coaches like User:Durova and follow some of her suggestions and methods.
I also of course would put in a plug for my User:Filll/WP Challenge as part of training of admin candidates, and helping them to be more familiar with a wider range of situations that arise on Wikipedia than they would be normally.
This admin training and coaching can also help with helping candidates navigate the difficult problem of ethics and correct procedures. I notice that some candidates are tripped up by running afoul of ethical problems. Perhaps having candidates study previous successful and failed candidacies to learn what to do and what not to do could be helpful.
I wonder if rather than designate success as being 70 percent or 75% or 80 percent, if we should designate success as being the level exceeded by the top 40% of the admin candidates in the last 6 months or so.
Should we consider secret ballots?
Should we allow as much canvassing as possible, since it is almost impossible to stop it?
Should we choose voters by a random scheme as Slrubenstein suggests?
These are a few ideas to start with.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)