User:Ruhrfisch/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)

   I am an admin and would not be one unless I had been asked. I waited until the third time someone asked me before agreeing to "run". I think this is probably the best way to get candidates and have suggested becoming an admin to several users I admired, trusted, and thought would do a good job.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I think it is one of those things that is good in theory and has become more problematic in practice. I would not ban the practice, but perhaps there are ways to make it less a "jump through the hoops" process or a checklist to "collect these twenty things (no matter how crappily done) and you too can become an admin"

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

   I think this is essential to the process - there has to be a clear statement as to why someone thinks a user would make a good admin. I think the effectiveness of co-noms decreases wth number (one or two good, much more- what's the point). I am less fond of self-noms, although I would not forbid them.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   A no-no. I can think of at least one candidate I was prepared to support that I did not because of canvassing

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Good within reason. I sometimes wish there were RfA directors who could reign in some of the questions at RfA.

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

   It's the wiki-way

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   No problem with this, although I wish there were some standard template for it - I have seen RfAs "disappear" and had to look at the page history to see that the candidate withdrew.

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

   I think the crats do a thankless job well

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

   I found it very helpful and wish it were in some ways required. I also find there are many admin tasks where I could pitch in, but the learning curve is high and instructions are vague or non-existent and I just do something else. Just because an admin gets the bit does not mean they suddenly know how to do everything.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I think this should be mandatory and standardized, perhaps with a few options. Perhaps make some new standard for new admins and allow old ones to opt in.

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?

   I like the mop image - admins clean up the messes others can't. I think admins also serve as unofficial role models. I try very hard not to abuse my admin status ("well I am an admin and I think that it should be done this way...") but I also think sometimes with debates just the fact that an admin has a certain position carries extra weight with some (not that it should - I screw up just as much since I became an admin as I did before)

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

   Calm, trustworthy, dependable, able to communicate well, know when to step aside too

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 thought it was not a !vote ;-) I generally participate only if I have some experience with the user up for Admin already - I find that makes it easier as I have some idea of the qualities the person possesses - I still read the nom and questions and look at edits and examples given.

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

   Yes - for me personally it wound up being a quite positive experience (no opposes) although I expected several people I had unknowingly slighted to pop out of the woodwork and tell the wiki world what a monster I am, no one did so (my good luck or being boring - your pick)

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

   I sometimes have thought there should be some time limits on the process - perhaps that a user can not apply until they have a certain number of edits and a certain number of months. I know there is no limit now and sometimes some poor dumb lamb will self nominate after a few months and few edits and come bleating to the slaughter. I also think there should be some sort of time limit between tries - if someone's RfA fails, they should have to wait a set period before a new one. I think this would avoid some grief. I also wonder about some sort of emphasis time limits - there will be good editors who have many thousands of edits and a few years here, but who were once young and did things they regret and this is dragged up in RfA. If someone has kept their nose clean for a year, I think past incidents could be mentioned but not be overly emphasized. Not sure how to put this idea into practice though.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 01:05 on 30 June 2008.