Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status as of 14:32 (UTC), Thursday, 23 May 2024 (update time)

Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. --19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! This is the discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of RFA2024, which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. The discussion close by AirshipJungleman29 is reprinted here:

There is consensus to implement this proposal. Considering its broad-strokes nature, it will have to be heavily worked on in Phase II.

The original proposal by SportingFlyer follows:

I am proposing to expand the mentoring options available for users considering putting their hat in for the mop.

My general idea is to provide an additional process for mentorship besides the optional candidate poll by creating a separate, distinct process which would feature the following:

  • structure the RfA poll to make the user provide more information on why they are interested
  • time when the feedback will happen, perhaps annually or bi-annually, and promote it to allow as much feedback as possible
  • start promotion the week before as a call for people potentially interested in being admins to express their interest publicly
  • use a support/oppose/unsure system instead of a 0-10 poll
  • moderate it to keep things as civil as possible. Unlike an RfA, this would be a chance for someone who would oppose to have an honest discussion directly with the candidate. I think you would probably have to disallow directly responding to other users in a threaded manner.

I've noted above I believe the problem we're trying to solve here are the edge cases, the candidates who either don't fail so spectacularly or aren't complete shoo-ins, because the community can get very difficult about deciding what conduct is and is not disqualifying when vetting a candidate.

Right now my two biggest reasons for not wanting to be an admin are that I don't want to do anything which might increase my time spent on here and that I don't want to go through an RfA. Right now, the only real way of getting public feedback is through the optional poll, which is often poorly attended, and feedback not necessarily helpful.

Changing the way we do admin intake to make it more conversational and collegial before an RfA is even started should help candidates understand what they are "up against" when being formally vetted.

Open discussion[edit]

  • Suggestion The proposal noted that the optional polls are poorly attended. I think two solutions would be: 1. Listing at WP:CENT, just like RfAs. 2. Encouraging some form of "canvassing" – candidates should request the opinions of specific editors. 1 is self-explanatory: If more people see the poll, more will attend. 2 is probably a little controversial. I think it would be useful for potential RfA candidates to seek the opinions of editors they have previously had conflicts with, so leaving a message on the Talk pages of specific editors whose opinions they wish to hear would be constructive. This shouldn't turn into "ping every editor in good standing to make my RfA poll look good". Toadspike (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The optional poll isn't intended to be a widespread vote on a potential candidate's suitability. I don't feel it meets the criterion of matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed. Potential candidates are already encouraged to seek advice from editors they respect. Such one-on-one conversations are more akin to mentoring than the poll. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apprehension toward the RfA process is mostly a mix of wanting to avoid incivility and hearing that many of your peers do not trust you with additional responsibility. The former is already being addressed by other proposals, while the latter is not really improved by prominently advertising mock polls to potentially get the same sort of negative feedback. I want to reiterate Extraordinary Writ's worry that drawing greater attention to WP:ORCP-like polling will simply identify skeletons in the closet that sink future RfAs, whereas requesting nomination or seeking one-on-one advising, potentially with those an editor has previously been in dispute with, provides critical feedback. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone have ideas regarding how to foster more one-on-one mentorship, or other forms of mentorship, and you would like to get some feedback, please do offer them for discussion. (The optional poll doesn't really fit what most people think of as mentorship, and the original proposal sounded to me more like a trial-run RfA process than mentoring.) The good thing is that anyone can proceed with an optional mentorship initiative: it just needs volunteers willing to commit to implementing and executing the process, and interested users willing to participate. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one of the desires is a more conversational and collegial process, should it be open to responses from current administrators only, simply to limit the volume of responses, potential unpleasantries, and back-and-forth commentary?

    Could this be a multi-step process? That is, it would start by an editor stating that they're interested in volunteering for adminship and want feedback on if they should stand for RfA. Responses might be along the lines of "We need more administrators to do X and Y and your contributions look like you'd be good at at least one of those," or "Spend some time gaining experience with _______ beforehand," or "You'd be excellent and I'll nominate you right now if you'd like." Then that direct, limited feedback would move an editor to the next step, whether that's mentoring, ORCP, or something else. --Sable232 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At present, there's Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination where you can find someone to ask for feedback. You can display a userbox to be placed on Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls, but I don't know if anyone really trawls through that list to look for potential candidates. I think a revived Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators in theory could help provide a sounding board, but there is a concern about how much feedback ought to be offered in public, which is why it became inactive. In effect, the people interested in addressing these issues have so far preferred to avoid potential unpleasantries by keeping the process off-wiki. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feedback from a member of the community is most useful when they have a good understanding of what an admin actually does and is expected to do, bearing in mind that not everyone has to be able to do everything, and we are all volunteers, and not obliged to use any specific tool. Active admins and other active editors with broad and/or specialised experience are likely to be most useful for this. Maybe a list of editors willing to give this type of feedback, which can be chosen to give feedback by the potential candidate, each specifying what they are willing to advise on? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some editors who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination § Editors willing to be asked to nominate a user have included info about what they are looking for, and a few have mentioned areas where they would be able to provide advice. Perhaps some of those who have had discussions with nominators or other people before making a request for administrative privileges can comment on how helpful it was or would have been to know more in advance about the areas of expertise of their nominators/advisors? isaacl (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be useful feedback. Good suggestion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Mentoring_process&oldid=1224188589"