User:Karanacs/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)

   ...

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I believe that administrator coaching is not a good idea. I have seen several instance where users decide they wish to be administrators, nominate themselves for coaching, and then go on a wild spree around WP trying to gain exposure to various parts of WP. In general these users are unfamiliar with the processes and can cause disruption at FAC, GA, and AfD. At other times, the coaching process seems to be little more than training people how to answer the questions. I do not believe there should be a system put in place to specifically train people to be administrators - those who understand the encyclopedia should be able to find areas in which to demonstrate collaboration and knowledge of processes and tools; those who can't figure out how to do this are likely not even close to ready to be administrators.

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

   I think that self-nomination is probably not a good idea and may suggest that someone is too invested in the status. I do read the nomination and conom statements; I'd like for them to include a brief overview of the candidate's WP career - they participate at X, Y, and Z and do this, that, and the other well.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Don't do it.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   For a while there was an epidemic of nonsense questions that had nothing to do with WP. I think it can be useful to ask a candidate specific questions about a certain event or to ask for clarification of something they said. There needs to be a limit, though.

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

   ...

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   I believe the candidate needs to provide a reason on the AfD for withdrawing and should then be barred from a new RfA for a certain period of time.

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

   ...

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

   ...

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I think there should be a formal yet simple process to discuss concerns about any sitting administrator and standards to decide if they should be de-sysopped (similar to WP:FAR and WP:GAR for articles). This should apply to all administrators, and it should have the ability to impose a variety of penalties - from an injunction not to use a specific tool to a temporary or permanent revocation of the tools.

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?

   Administrators do cleanup and enforce the WP 5 pillars, preferably in addition to building content in the encyclopedia. I don't believe a user should only participate using administrator tools - if you are not helping to improve the encyclopedia you likely won't relate as well to those who are.

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

   An ability to remain calm when discussing (or at least the ability to recognize if they are currently unable to be calm and then the willpower to walk away for a bit). A solid understanding of WP policies and guidelines, including those governing article content. A proven ability to colloborate with others - both on easy collaborations where everyone agrees and those more difficult cases where several factions disagree. A good grasp of the English language. Good judgement.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   Yes. I've seen opposers and supporters be addressed with pretty harsh language because others disagree with their reasoning. Although I do believe that someone should be able to register their reasons why they think a particular support or oppose !vote is unfounded, too often an RfA seems to degenerate into a battle between "us" and "them".

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

   Yes. It was overall very good, though I thought it a bit inappropriate that a few of my more overzealous supporters ventured off into discussions of the opposers and their actions; when asked they stopped.

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

   I worry a little that under the current system it would be easy for a group of particularly vehement POV-pushers to work to mold WP by block-supporting candidates who agree with their interpretation of policy and block-opposing those who disagree with them. I haven't seen evidence that this has happened in any large-scale way yet (although I have seen many candidates opposed based on their stance on the proposed WP:FICT guideline), but I think it is a possibility (albeit somewhat slim).

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:Karanacs/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 14:00 on 23 June 2008.