User:Kafziel/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 it's perfect the way it is.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
...Never interested me. It mostly seems geared toward creating ineffectual, obsequious admins, of which we already have more than enough.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
...Whatever works. I don't take points off for self-noms, as I know there are plenty of good editors who simply never get noticed for one reason or another.
Advertising and canvassing
...I don't think it's a bad thing, provided that opponents of an RFA are also allowed to canvass.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
...Debate is too one-sided to be useful. When people ask questions, they know what they want to hear and if they don't get it, they're going to oppose. If a candidate doesn't answer an "optional" question, they get an oppose vote. If a candidate dares to do anything but kowtow, they get even more oppose votes. I think the ability to add so-called "optional" candidate questions should be limited to admins (since they have already gone through the process) or, better yet, removed altogether. Some of the hoops candidates are forced to jump through are beyond absurd - like Filll's ridiculous challenge process. It's a power trip for users with nothing better to do.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
...RFA is a vote, and I'm fine with that. Sometimes voting is the best way to do things. Very few people require a reason for supporting someone, so a reason for opposing shouldn't be required, either.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
...A smart man knows when he's licked. Early withdrawal doesn't hurt anything.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
...Bureaucrats should close on time and based mainly on percentage, with a small amount of discretion.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
...It's nice to have someone to ask questions, but setting up all this pseudo-official stuff just adds to the bureaucracy.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
...Recall is nonsense. I'm not quite so against it that I'll oppose anyone who agrees to it, but I'm almost there. I'm certainly not on that list myself.

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?
...Being an administrator is a big deal, stupid Jimbo remarks notwithstanding.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
...A good grasp of policies and the balls to maintain them.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
...I rarely pile on, but I'll vote to support candidates I truly respect, and I'll vote to oppose candidates I know are bad for the project.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
...I self-nominated the first time, narrowly got sunk at the last minute on my second nomination, and passed unanimously on my third.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
...With a few minor exceptions (like the candidate questions) I think it works pretty well just the way it is.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 07:01 on 27 June 2008.