User:Jared/RfA review

Welcome to the Question phase of RfA Review. We hope you'll take the time to respond to your questions in order to give us further understanding of what you think of the RfA process. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers here. Also, feel free to answer as many questions as you like. Don't feel you have to tackle everything if you don't want to.

In a departure from the normal support and oppose responses, this review will focus on your thoughts, opinions and concerns. Where possible, you are encouraged to provide examples, references, diffs and so on in order to support your viewpoint. Please note that at this point we are not asking you to recommend possible remedies or solutions for any problems you describe, as that will come later in the review.

If you prefer, you can submit your responses anonymously by emailing them to gazimoff (at) o2.co.uk. Anonymous responses will be posted as subpages and linked to from the responses section, but will have the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the talk page.

Once you've provided your responses, please encourage other editors to take part in the review. More responses will improve the quality of research, as well as increasing the likelihood of producing meaningful results.

Once again, thank you for taking part!

Questions

When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)

   This area is definitely important, in that some candidates might not immediately know if they are Admin material. Alternatively, this should not be the only way in which candidates can arise, but should probably be the way used most often. Perhaps a task force of editors can be on the search for prospective admins, and recommend ones to the "process."

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   In general, I don't think this is a good idea. If someone is really ready to become an admin, they shouldn't need coaching. Not to sound like some sort of prophet, but its something they'll have to know they're ready for. You can't really teach good adminship.

3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)

   Sometimes I've seen this get absurdly ridiculous. As many as 10 or more co-nominations for one candidate. Frankly, all that is needed is one nominator, and if that nominator is not a self-nominator, then it would be within reason for the candidate to say a few words about himself as well.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Obviously, if a candidate is ready, support shouldn't need to be garnered. Since getting adminship isn't really about pitching a campaign or showing your character, but more about past actions (which are, interestingly enough, ALL documented on Wikipedia), there is really no need to let other people know of your own RfA. The RfA page should be the only "billboard."

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   There should be a set of questions that come standard to each candidate, but really, there shouldn't be many more question sets forced down upon the candidate by random editors. In all honesty, it's up to the editors to trace back through the history of Wikipedia in order to find flaws, not drill them with questions.

6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

   An interesting way to do this, and something that might work, would be to have editors work in the fashion of the Supreme Court, writing majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions of the nomination. People could discuss the written opinions of others, agree, disagree, and for different reasons, and "sign on" to the statements of others. This way, its not completely about counting votes, but seeing the reasons for why the candidate should be selected. Of course, there's no way it can be done without counting, so this just ensures there is more meat to the argument side of the process.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   This should definitely be permitted, especially if the candidate can see right away that there is an issue. Hopefully, the new system will ensure that the candidate is properly prepared, but if need be, I have no problem letting a candidate up and leave an RfA, with allowing it to become a problem in the future.

8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)

   Bureaucrats should, yes, be the ones to close the process, and I think it is appropriate for only one to do the job. The nomination should not be able to be closed early unless the candidate chooses to do so. It is really a learning process, not a "you're not good enough, maybe when you're older"-type deal.

9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)

   Yes, there should be some sort of guide for admins to read, because with new responsibilities comes a new mindset. However, it should not be mandatory to go though a "school" or to be formally trained by someone else. It would be too time consuming.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    If editors believe that the admin is good enough to be an admin, they should also be the judge of the opposite, so it would be within reason to let them recall admins. This should not just be the sole responsibility of arbitration.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

1. How do you view the role of an administrator?

   An admin should really be a transparent figure, acting just like other editors, but stepping up only when his tools permit him to take one step higher. It shouldn't be something that forevermore places the editor on a pedestal above other editors.

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

   Basically, an admin should be anyone who has evidenced his honesty and loyalty. Sure, this comes after some time, after the editor has established a niche, but once that has been shown, there should be no question of adminship.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?

   I'm fairly certain I have, but not recently, if that says something about the current process and my past experience as well.

2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?

   Twice as a matter of fact. The first time, in retrospect, I obviously wasn't ready, and the second time several mishaps were blown out of proportion. I believe had I become an admin then, I would have stuck more with Wikipedia, but I have since digressed, but in hopes of returning for good.

3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?

   Something completely new and innovative needs to arise from this discussion, and I know the temptation is to do something we all know, and with large discussion, it is easy to compromise on something not as "different" from before, but it is absolutely imperative that we start over, perhaps with mock RfAs.

Once you're finished...

Thank you again for taking part in this review of the Request for Adminship process. Now that you've completed the questionnaire, don't forget to add the following line of code to the bottom of the Response page by clicking this link and copying the following to the BOTTOM of the list.

* [[User:Jared/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 02:47 on 25 June 2008.