Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status as of 01:25 (UTC), Saturday, 8 June 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]
  • It is now clear to me that to get proper mentoring currently, one simply has to ask people at the list of willing RfA nominators for advice. The desired mentoring system exists, it's just informal, offwiki, and hard to find. Maybe this is okay – we just need to hope that RfA candidates avail themselves of that resource. Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Informal is OK, but the standards are then also informal, so probably biased, off-wiki is acceptable, but should probably not be the only option, hard to find is not so good, it is an extra hoop to jump through. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original thought was to refocus the optional RfA process, but it does seem like this is more for lesser experienced editors to gauge what more they have to do in order to become admins. A lot of the documentation about becoming an admin isn't bad, but it could be a lot more focused. For instance, Wikipedia:How_to_pass_an_RfA#How_to_prepare_for_an_RfA lists a bunch of ways to potentially collect hats. Do we instead need a clearer pathway, not even for becoming an admin, but to bring in users who may be interested in becoming regulars in AfD processes? I didn't know what AfD was until an article I cared about was up for deletion, or DRV until an AfD I participated in was incorrectly closed, for instance. There are a lot of ways to contribute to this project, we don't need admins for all of them, lots of users who might be interested in becoming admins get pushed to become more well-rounded editors. We also need better intake processes for experienced editors who may want to be admins. I'm not talking about the RfA process - for instance I am not sure where to start finding people who would potentially nominate me as an admin, if that was something I wanted to do. And apparently you can reach out on your own to get nominated, but that isn't really all that clear! SportingFlyer T·C 06:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More accessible information on how to learn to be a more competent editor in general would be good for everyone, not just people with ambitions/willingness to be an admin.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe also include a listing of what is required of an admin, and what is generally considered desirable qualities, and possibly also list things that an admin is not. A lot of this could be summaries of existing stuff with links. A Navbox could be useful for easy reference, but lets keep the shortcuts to a minimum. A propensity for bombarding people with a wall of shortcuts is a poor substitute for actual reasoned argument. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it important to be clear what is policy, what is guidance (generally accepted by consensus by the community) and what is minority opinion, as this will inform RfA participants as to what is acceptable as an opposition, and what is not. This does not constrain anyone from not supporting a candidate, but stated opposition should be based on agreed community expectations or personal objections, noted as such and explained in sufficient detail to be clear what they are. The primary prerequisite is trust of the general community. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user mentorship initiative from the WMF Growth team is the best way to help guide people. We already have a lot of written guidance (for example, a link to a page I've mentioned a couple of times, Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, is present in the navbox at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates § User nominations). Having a contact to answer questions will provide interactive assistance, and guide users to the right pages. We need more volunteer mentors, though, so all new users can be benefit from the program. It's a role that requires patience, as the vast majority of users never ask questions or respond to you, and the signal-to-noise ratio is very low. I know this is a sticking point for some current (or past) mentors. That's the cost, though, of having a welcoming program open to everyone: since the retention rate is really low, the diamonds in the rough are far and few between. I think it is the method that will pay off the best, nonetheless. isaacl (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be helpful. I think my most recent point is a lot of the responses here have been "this exists already," and that you have to have self-initiative, which isn't a problem, but I think if I were to present my idea again, it would be to help those who might be interested but wouldn't necessarily know how to take the initiative, in part because I'm still not entirely sure about that, by allowing someone to reach out to them. I'm wondering now if we need to re-think some of the documentation. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question then becomes "do we help people who might become useful admins, or do we leave the system as a filter to eliminate those who can't negotiate it by themselves" I think the number of admins suggests the filter eliminates too many possible candidates. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I think the homepage approach with a listed mentor is a good approach. The new user is welcomed and invited to ask questions to a specific person. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What homepage is this? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Growth Team features § Newcomer homepage. isaacl (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, is there any way that a third party can see a user's homepage? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience, I doubt that anyone will use the mentorship system that way unless something is changed, Also the bar to clear to volunteer as a mentor is remarkably low (500 edits and 90 days), so there may be a lot of people on that list who would know less about what it takes to be an admin than the people who might be looking for advice. (I have not attempted to analyse it, just a gut feel). One's chances of getting useful advice are probably greater just asking a random admin, and if you can't find a random admin then it is extremely unlikely that you are anywhere near ready to be one. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're doing our best to lay out the flagstones, by giving users a homepage with a mentor shown, continually prompting them of someone to whom they can ask questions. The community can choose to set requirements for becoming a mentor; so far, though, discussion on the topic has been limited (see this discussion thread for links to previous discussions). My comments were in response to some of SportingFlyer's comments: I didn't know what AfD was until an article I cared about was up for deletion, or DRV until an AfD I participated in was incorrectly closed, for instance. There are a lot of ways to contribute to this project, we don't need admins for all of them, lots of users who might be interested in becoming admins get pushed to become more well-rounded editors. I think mentorship can help guide editors to improve in many different aspects, beyond just becoming an administrator. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, I do not have a homepage. I do not know how many or which users do have a homepage, so I have no context to assess your assertions against. This makes it difficult to develop a useful opinion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eventually found out how to get one. Took a bit of a rabbit hole run. Based on what I saw, it does not seem to be a thing that most long term Wikipedians with the experience to make them suitable admin candidates would be likely to have chosen to activate, but I may be wrong. Do we have statistics?
    On the other hand, it could be a suitable place to link to people who could provide mentorship for aspiring admin candidates, but only if they had a homepage activated. I also noticed that I was allocated a mentor, presumably by a semi-random process, who I had never heard of or crossed paths with, who edits almost entirely in fields I do not, which admittedly is a very large part of Wikipedia, and not in any way a reflection on either of us personally, just that I would expect to have more common ground with someone with at least vaguely similar interests, and find it easier to make helpful suggestions to someone editing in an area where I have at least a little knowledge and interest.
    If they were to ask me for advice on becoming an admin, I would have to do a lot of work before I could make any useful suggestions, and would not be surprised if the converse also applied. Even in your case, where we have both been contributors to quite a number of discussions, and I have had sufficient exposure to your arguments to develop an appreciation for your reasoning capacity, clarity of expression, and general politeness of interaction, there is a limit to what I could could advise you based on personal experience, and I also wonder how useful such advice would actually be in practice. I guess it would depend on what you asked. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. No one has ever asked me for guidance on becoming an admin, so I have no personal experience in attempting to give it, bur I would probably feel obliged to try, depending on who asked. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Homepage links to each user's homepage, but users who predate the deployment of the feature have to opt in to see it (the page displayed when a user is opted out has a link to the preference setting to enable it). It is targeted for newcomers, so it gives them suggestions for newcomer tasks, provides help links, and displays a mentor with a link to ask them questions. Under the hood, the software assigns a mentor to everyone, even those who don't have the newcomer homepage feature enabled, but to keep the workload manageable for the number of volunteers, it's only displayed for 50% of new users. Mentors are a starting point for a newcomer's network of contacts; for example, they can point newcomers to active WikiProjects that are related to the newcomers' areas of interest. For editors interested in attaining administrative privileges, mentors can direct them to one of the frequent nominators for requests for adminship. Of course, not everyone will want to commit to undertake this type of role. Whether or not there are enough volunteers to expand the percentage of newcomers who get to see a mentor shown on their homepage remains to be seen. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you use Special:Homepage in this context in a way that would be accessible to the target audience? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a feature targeted for newcomers, it only covers that portion of the audience. For existing users who "might be interested but wouldn't necessarily know how to take the initiative", as SportingFlyer stated, some other approach will be needed. I don't have any ideas on how to connect these users to mentors in a non-intrusive manner. Perhaps some existing processes that they may already know can be leveraged: say a semi-annual watchlist notice is posted to remind users that they can ask questions at the Teahouse, including how to connect to people who can answer their questions about different aspects of Wikipedia. Teahouse hosts can then introduce any interested users to mentors. isaacl (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topical survey[edit]

Where would you intuitively think to look for advice on becoming an Admin, and any associated requirements? (extend list with your ideas, comment below) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:How to become an admin or Help:How to become an admin on Wikipedia and other redirects from synonyms.
  2. Wikipedia:What is an admin?, Help:What does a Wikipedia administrator do?, Help:Wikipedia administrator and redirects from synonyms.
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators

Comments:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Mentoring_process&oldid=1227725776"