User:Risker/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)

   It's a common belief throughout the encyclopedia that the RfA process is unpleasant and capricious; therefore, well-qualified candidates are not encouraged to take the leap. We miss out on a lot of potentially great admins because there is little active recruiting outside of certain circles, or because people take one look at some of the nastier RfAs and say no thanks.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Before becoming an admin coach, one should genuinely look at the present admin corps and identify the characteristics and talents that make for a good administrator. Those are the things that should be coached: how to participate meaningfully at ANI, not just say "per Admin X"; discussions on analysing consensus in a complex AfD in the 24 hours before it closes, then comparing the coachee's thoughts with that of the closer; identifying when it would be better to open a personal communication with a potentially troublesome new editor rather than reporting them to AIV; differentiating between poorly executed good faith edits and vandalism. All of these will make for better administrators. Being taught how to pass an RfA doesn't.

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

   I think being nominated is better than self-nominating, because at least one person has given the candidate a sanity check and is willing to go out on a limb to say the candidate has what it takes. Co-noms (in my mind) are more important for the candidate who has had previous RfAs; what I would look for generally is either a co-nom from someone who had a previous concern with the candidate, or someone who works in very different areas of the encyclopedia from the nominator.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Gimme a break. Darn right there is canvassing. Better to develop some common conventions. I think a message to someone who has expressed a previous interest in nominating/voting is fine (especially if there is an on-wiki diff attached). I can't decide, though, how to handle off-wiki candidate promotion; maybe I've become too inured to the emails and the IRC convos. (Not that I am ever on IRC.)

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Limit the number of questions. Nobody should ever be required to answer 20 questions for an RfA. Period. Questions requiring regurgitation of policies should be eliminated; anyone can look up WP:BLOCK.

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

   It's my practice to only vote when I have reviewed the candidate's contributions and/or know the candidate's work myself. I think that support votes are more meaningful when they include reasons, not just for other voters but for the candidate him or herself, especially when the support is somewhat qualified or the voter wishes to emphasise a specific activity/characteristic.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   RfAs can be unpredictable; my own RfA started off looking pretty borderline, and I am sure many candidates might well have withdrawn at that point. I'd encourage anyone who is a serious candidate to stick it out for at least a couple of days, even if the RfA is going badly, because the feedback has the potential to be very beneficial. On the other hand, if someone is well below 50% after the first 48 hours, that may be all the anguish they can tolerate, and nobody should think ill of a person in those circumstances should they withdraw.

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

   I'd rather the 'crats closed all RfAs, although it might well be a kindness for senior editors to approach a WP:NOTNOW candidate on their talk page and very politely and kindly encourage them to withdraw of their own accord, and then assist the editor in doing so if they wish.

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

   I've used some of the stuff in New Admin School, but pushing the buttons is the easy part of the job, it's figuring out when it's appropriate to do so that is the hard part.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I'd like to see a better way than we have now; the voluntary method doesn't particularly impress me (the two that were attempted were disasters, and none have been attempted since Lar started his project), and except for ridiculously egregious problems it seems Arbcom will not act until there has been the requisite amount of community drama (RfC's, ANI threads, AN threads, endless talk page discussions). Perhaps the community would agree to one of the more demanding voluntary standards now in existence, and admins could voluntarily agree to less stringent requirements for themselves. I am, however, really disappointed in candidates who say they will put themselves up for AOR and then fail to do so; either do it, or be honest enough, if asked, to say you won't. One doesn't have to volunteer the information, but should answer the question honestly.

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?

   Part janitor, part helper, part social worker, part philosopher, part mediator, part stern principal. Different admins will emphasise different characteristics.

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

   The ability to perform at least four of the six roles above. The ability to conduct effective interpersonal communication is generally more important than any technical proficiency, with few exceptions.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   I have, and generally it has been a non-issue, although on the rare occasion when I have voted oppose I have been challenged; other editors might have found some of those challenges to be quite intimidating and thus would have avoided those RfAs.

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

   Recently successful candidate, and I haven't completely deconstructed the experience yet. I've been told by some of the "regulars" that mine was a rather odd RfA, so I doubt my experience was typical. I found it strange to have so few questions; pleasantly surprised at some of the positive feedback I received; and relatively well prepared for the majority of opposes. I found it disconcerting to see people I didn't regularly interact with defending me or otherwise debating my actions, and hope it was a sign that I'd made an impression on them in some other venue. It was also quite possibly the longest 7 days I have ever had on Wikipedia, and it dawns on me that a 5-day period should probably be sufficient. It also caused me to rethink any notions I'd had about probationary periods or mandatory reviews.

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

   ...

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 00:53 on 15 June 2008.