User:Wizardman/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'm admittedly biased here, but I love doing it, and think it's great to find new admins. Yes, it's a difficult process, but there are many that may feel uncomfortable with self-noms, and may not be sure if they want to be admins at first. Offering to nominate could create new administrators though users who we might not think of at first. Heck, I've nommed over 40 users, and actually got it down to a science in a way. You look through backlogs through users who seem productive in them who may not be admins, or you could look at help/ref desks to find helpful users, or look at FAC to find some productive article writers who also help with tools. Finding the candidate's the easy part though.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
I oppose this, mainly because I don't see adminship as something that can be "coached". Really, the only way to really get the best feel of adminship is just to use the tools during those first few days and really knowing what you're good at, what you're bad at, because it could be very different from the answer to Q1. Plus, in a way it teaches you more about how to pass RfA rather than actually teaching you what it means to be an admin. Bluntly, adminship is an on-the-job learning experience.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
Doesn't matter to me which of the three exists. What the nom(s) say is what's important.
Advertising and canvassing
No need. Why do it?
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
I think this is overdone at times, though ideally this is a good way to get an idea of the candidates. I don't like cut-n-paste (stock) questions at all, as they're a waste of time. Those that relate to the user and possible bring up past instances could show the user in an Rfa-deciding light though.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
Nothing else would work, though this isn't a perfect system.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
If they want to, fine. If not, that's fine too, unless it's at 0/13/2 by that point or so.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
Bureaucrats should close RfAs. In NOTNOW cases, it's okay for an admin to close
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
Never used it/bothered with it. Opinion somewhere between #2 and no opinion.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
Ideally, something like this would be mandatory, in order to more easily get out the few bad apples. The ones that put themselves up for recall are the admins pretty much everyone likes anyway. An easier way to desysop users is sorely needed.

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?
Several answers rolled into one would make sense here. Janitor, Policeman, Judge, Community Leader, etc.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
I prefer specialists over the well-rounded, because you know what they can do, and they're smart enough not to blindly charge in an area where they have little experience. So long as they're civil and they know what they're doing, there's not much else an admin needs.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
Yup. I've had virtually no problems, except for one instance where I got fed up by the overuse of stock questions and started to auto-support. It wasn't meant well, but it wasn't too long after that the 20 questions per RfA suddenly stopped.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
Yup. I had no problems. Honestly though, I don't think I'd pass RfA in June 2008 based on my January 2007 self.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
RfA has its cracks and chips, but it's far, far from broken.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 23:09 on 19 June 2008.