User:Waggers/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 seems to be very much "who you know not what you know" - in my experience the vast majority of admin candidates self nominate. We could do with a programme that actively looks for potential administrators as it would surely be far more rewarding to have someone else recognise your contributions and put you forward rather than having to put yourself forward and, essentially, sell yourself. Adminship shouldn't be about who's the best salesman.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   The important thing is that there are clear and concise instructions for administrators; if those are in place, then the candidate shouldn't succeed in becoming an admin if they can't read, understand and follow them. So coaching isn't (or shouldn't be) necessary. Asking for advice on WP:AN is always an option - I don't see a need to add anything more.

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

   See my first answer. It's great when someone is nominated by another user, but the danger of that is that it becomes more about who your wikifriends are and less about how good an editor/administrator you are/would be.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Very bad. Candidates that do this are only likely to approach people that would support them, so even if they're not actively saying "please vote for me", the message is there loud and clear. That said, it's fine for potential candidates to ask other editors questions like "I'm thinking of going for adminship, do you think I'd be a suitable candidate?" - but that has to happen BEFORE nomination.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   It's an essential part of the process. Sometimes it's important to clarify why the editor acted in a certain way, or to ascertain what they'd do in a given situation. The answers, and the wording/phrasing thereof, can be hugely illuminating.

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

   Should be limited to autoconfirmed users at the very least. It's important to give a reason, but I don't like it when other editors come along and dispute that reasoning, turning a vote into a discussion. If they disagree, they should tell the user that on their talk page. If the user decides to change their vote, they can - but the AfD process itself should be kept clean and concise. I also think there should be a quorum (if there isn't one already) and there should be some checks in place to make sure the election isn't skewed by the friends or enemies of the candidate! (Although if they have a lot of enemies, perhaps they shouldn't succeed!)

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Nobody is forced to do anything on Wikipedia and of course the candidate should have the option to withdraw. But many users spend a lot of time considering each candidate and researching their backgrounds etc., and it's important that RfA isn't taken lightly. So I think there should always be a good reason given for a withdrawal, especially if it isn't a case of WP:SNOW (ie. the candidate decided they had no chance of success this time round).

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

   Just like AfD, if the decision is contentious or controversial, a summary of the reasoning behind the decision should be provided. But there's no point wasting bureaucrats' time with a lengthy account of every decision - the straightforward applications should speak for themselves.

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

   I think the bureaucrat should post a template on the new admin's user talk page when they are given the tools, and that template should be similar to the welcome templates, but obviously with admin-related links - including the noticeboards, new admin school, etc. New admins should be encouraged to take things slowly, but in my experience the best way to learn is on-the-job. Every deletion can still be undone, every blocked user can be unblocked - we have to be prepared to allow new admins to find their own way, even if that means the occasional mistake.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    All administrators are open to recall, whether they opt to add themselves to the programme or not. They're actions can be called into question at any time, and if they're found to have been negligent or abused their powers, then the can be desysopped. I don't see the need for any process other than that, unless we're going to make adminship a fixed-term thing (ie. you have to reapply for adminship every X years). While I wish the UK government would introduce such a scheme for the driving licence, I don't think we need it for our admins. WP:AN and ArbCom suffices to keep admins in check.

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?

   ...A guardian of the encyclopaedia, a servant to the community, a good example for others to follow. The latter is vital - administrators should not be seen to be above the law but to uphold it. Also they should carry on writing articles etc. and lead by example. Administrators are Wikipedia editors first and administrators second.

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

   ...A calm head, an ability to express themselves (in writing, obviously) clearly and to explain their actions. Obviously a good knowledge of the project and its policies is essential. A good sense of humour and optimistic attitude is also essential; WP:AGF comes into its own when you're an administrator - it's essential that administrators "see the good" in other editors and are prepared to exercise forgiveness at every opportunity.

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 was surprised how rigorous some of the other voters were with their criteria for an administrator. The only question I wanted to answer was "do/can I trust this person?" It's important to remember that the administrator tools used to be available to ALL logged in users and RfA only came about to stop vandals getting hold of the tools. If there's no evidence that a user is going to abuse the tools, then there's no reason to deny them access. At least, that was my attitude when I voted!

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

   I have, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was surprised how easy it seemed to be and received some really positive, encouraging comments. I felt, and still feel, incredibly honoured to have been endorsed in this way and to have the trust of complete strangers placed in me to look after their hard work on this project.

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

   There are many users (me included) who very rarely look at RfA, and a handful of users who do, very regularly. As a result, those few users are essentially making all the decisions on behalf of the community. Perhaps there should be a limit on how many RfAs each user can take part in, and more advertising of the RfA process to pull in more users. Either that, or an RfA committee that changes membership each month, or something along those lines. Having said that, the status quo seems to work well enough; no system is going to be perfect.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 20:23 on 20 June 2008.