User:Unschool/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[edit]

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

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
...I think that there should be no bias regarding whether an RfA candidate self-noms or not. The fact is, many good editors haven't gotten known by the people who would do the nominating. (I should add, however, that I don't think that a bias against self-noms is a problem right now, other than with a couple of editors.) And actually, I think that the policy should probably be changed to explicitly require self-noms. If I want someone to be an admin, I (and others) can encourage him on his talk pages to step forward. But this way everyone is standing on equal footing.

Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
...I just see it as a way for people to get their name noticed by nominators, and to swell the egos of those who "coach" them. Still, training before getting the tools is valuable.

Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
...I think I've covered this above. Eliminating all but self-noms gets rid of this drama that goes into the nominating process.

Advertising and canvassing
...I think canvassing is not inherently a bad thing. Free speech is free speech. If it is perceived that there is a problem with the way someone is expressing him or herself, the solution is for someone who dislikes it to come behind them and point out their issues with the so-called canvasser. Look, we can try to prevent canvassing all we want, but people who want to do it will do so, even if they have to take it to other forums and formats.

Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
...I don't know. The questions all seem so . . . tired. Sigh.

Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
...I think that how this is done currently is perfectly fine. I generally like the way the debates unfold.

Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
...I think that it's fine now. I think that SNOW is generally a good thing, too.

Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
...I have no issues with this process. I mean, what's the alternative? A straight up-or-down vote? No way.

Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
...Good idea. Is this required before they get to actually use the tools? Should be.

Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
...This should not be voluntary, but neither should it be "If five editors acting independently want me out . . . " It should be like RfA, or better yet, like AfD. Anyone should be able to nominate an sysop for recall, have a page where others can join in, and let the debate ensue. There should be a provision for both a Speedy Recall and Speedy Sustain, and the decision should not be by a vote, but by the consensus as determined by a bureaucrat.

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

How do you view the role of an administrator?
...Like a village judge who hopes to be able to just mediate most of the time, but who must occasionally put the town drunk or small time hood in the slammer for a few days.

What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
...Patience, experience on wikipedia (but not necessarily in all areas), patience, intelligence, patience, and most important of all, they must have the innate ability to see things from the perspective of persons who are not like themselves. This is the heart of WP:AFG, and if they don't demonstrate it and teach it to others (via enforcement), then we are lost.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
...Occasionally. My vote has never made any difference. Nor should it have. I'm just an occasional visitor.

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

Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
...Well, I just hope you guys really read all of these and make some changes. The current process is like a sterile garbage dump. It's a big mess, devoid of any signs of life.

Once you're finished...[edit]

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 03:52 on 23 June 2008.