User:Shereth/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)

   While I have on occasion considered nominating a candidate for RfA, it is not a part of the process I have participated in thus far. I am fairly ambivalent toward the selection process - those who choose to nominate a candidate have their own standards and rationale for who they will or will not nominate, and it should remain that way. I would be highly opposed to any change in this process, such as automated nominations based on any preselected set of criteria.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Administrator coaching is a good idea for those who have a desire to participate and help with the admin side of the 'pedia but who do not have much experience and are a little intimidated by the complex web of policies and procedures that we have. However, I will never consider admin coaching to be a prerequisite toward candidacy, and do not consider it as a "plus" to one's candidacy.

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

   When considering a candidate I do not take in to consideration the method of their nomination. A good nomination statement can be a powerful indicator of an established track record, but it may just as easily be an indication of good networking skills. To me, the only factor worth considering is the content of the nomination, not who makes it.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   I am against advertising and canvassing in any way, shape, or form. A candidate should be measured based on their demonstrated abilities and knowledge of policy rather than their ability to make friends or put notification templates in the right places.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and expecting candidates for adminship to be subject to questioning is a reasonable part of this effort. Often it is the best way to get into the mind of a candidate and gain a better understanding for why they do the things they do.

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

   As with all processes that include a !voting section, providing a reason for one's !vote gives it more weight.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   I'm not certain what's being asked here. If a candidate wishes to withdraw for any reason they should be able to do so.

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

   In clear-cut cases (ie. unanimous or near unanimous support or heavy opposition) it is more than sufficient for the closing bureaucrat to simply state whether the nomination was a success or a failure. In less clear-cut cases, an elaboration on the closure is often necessary and should be encouraged.

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

   As long as it is optional. The creation of a mandatory Admin School or some kind of mentorship program smacks of class division and the unnecessary elevation of the administrator position. Being an administrator is a voluntary effort and should be treated as such, rather than a position of esteem that one must go through the steps to achieve.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    As the recall process is wholly voluntary there is no need to standardize the process - a standard process for recalling administrators exists in the form of the Arbitration Committee.

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 administrator is little more than a user who had demonstrated the capacity to perform sensitive operations (ie. deletion) on the 'pedia. We are often depicted as being janitors handed a mop to go about cleaning up after the rest of the users, and for the most part this depiction is very astute.

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

   Administrators should be users who have demonstrated an understanding of process and policy, a capacity to abide by them, and the ability to work with others in a neutral fashion.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   As a semi-regular to RfA I have participated in numerous requests. I will admit that the process can be a little daunting - a responsible !vote comes only after the candidate's nomination statement and answers to questions have been considered and a review of their contribution history has been made, and in many cases that's a large amount of work. Beyond that my experiences have been largely positive.

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

   I have undergone 2 requests, one unsuccessful and one successful. RfA can be a stressful experience as candidates are subject to a high level of scrutiny, and may often have their beliefs or opinions called in to question and often their character itself is dragged through the mud. Given the often combative environments an administrator's actions are likely to get them involved in, I do not see a rigorous nomination process as a bad thing.

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

   "RFA IS BROKEN" is something of an oft-repeated mantra. It is also nothing new. I will certainly agree that the process is far from perfect, but I will also assert that it is, by and large, a successful process. The majority of the nominations I have seen come and go with little fuss and drama, are generally performed in a civil and efficient manner and result in the only outcome that makes any sense. It is the existence of a few controversial nominations that keep feeding the sentiment that the process is fundamentally and hopelessly broken. While I am not opposed to finding ways to improve and streamline the process, I have yet to see any suggestions that I feel are fundamentally superior to the current method, and I do not see the problem as being so egregious that widespread RFA reform is a pressing need of the project.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 20:40 on 16 June 2008.