User:Hroðulf/RfA review

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)
There are not enough admins, because there are some enormous admin backlogs, and some admins feel too busy with those to edit the encyclopedia. With 7 million registered users and 2 million articles, this will only get worse: we should find a way of identifying and selecting up to 50 candidates per week that will pass RfA.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
I think the use of coaching is an inappropriate reason to oppose a candidate. Some people are better at self-directed learning than others. I am not aware (yet) of any bad admins that had coaching before their nomination.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
...
Advertising and canvassing
...
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
I think the debates can run candidates through an emotional hazing. Pop quiz questions purely testing knowledge seem to be an unnecessary hazard. I wonder if there is a politer way of raking through an editor's past, because I suspect good candidates are not putting themselves forward. The most experienced editors have the most past to rake through.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
That is how WP:CONSENSUS works, in my understanding.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
...
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
Looks good
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
...
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
With constantly moving goalposts for RfA, I am concerned that good admins risk being recalled to face a more unpleasant, more politicised process than their original appointment. There are a tiny number of aggressive or careless admins, and I am not sure there are sufficient checks on them, but recall does not seem suitable. Finally, should an editor canvas for recall nominations?

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?
A great deal of responsibility with very little respect (except from other admins, a lot like a janitor with his keyring.)
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
Trustworthiness and civility. Some experience of the day-to-day hazards of editing articles.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
Not that I recall.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
No.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
...

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 12:47 on 17 June 2008.