Launch page. copy content from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall; see those pages for attribution.
New page
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Header}}
{{ambox|text=This page is '''not open for discussion yet'''! [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II|Phase II]] will begin shortly. Thank you for your patience. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] · he/him) 17:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)}}
Welcome! This is the discussion following up on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|a successful proposal from Phase I of RFA2024]], which called for {{tq|better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process}}. The discussion close by {{noping|AirshipJungleman29}} is reprinted here:
{{tqb|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 {{noping|SportingFlyer}} follows: {{tqb|I "*****" 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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll|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==
Okumaya devam et...
New page
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Header}}
{{ambox|text=This page is '''not open for discussion yet'''! [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II|Phase II]] will begin shortly. Thank you for your patience. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] · he/him) 17:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)}}
Welcome! This is the discussion following up on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|a successful proposal from Phase I of RFA2024]], which called for {{tq|better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process}}. The discussion close by {{noping|AirshipJungleman29}} is reprinted here:
{{tqb|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 {{noping|SportingFlyer}} follows: {{tqb|I "*****" 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 [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll|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==
Okumaya devam et...