User:Enigmaman/RfA review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A Review of the

Requests for Adminship Process

Overview

Question

Reflect - (Stats)

Recommend

Collate

Present

The Review Process
Methodology - Discussion

Requests for Adminship

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:

  1. Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
    Nominators have a burden. It's their responsibility to show the community why the candidate should be given the tools. All nominators should be thoroughly familiar with the person they are nominating.
  2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
    I think it's a good thing, so long as the coach focuses on making the coachee a better candidate, not just to game the system so the coachee can pass an RfA. It should be noted, however, that the best way to learn something is through experience.
  3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
    Nominations are necessary and I don't mind co-noms as long as there's no more than three or four. Self-nominations are part of the process and there is nothing wrong with them. The only problem is the prima facie opposes.
  4. Advertising and canvassing
    Should be avoided, unless the person in question had previously expressed interest in the RfA. Canvassing has swayed a number of RfAs.
  5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
    I'm fine with it, but it should be understood that the questions are optional. For example, on my RfA, Filll asked me to answer a few essay questions. I posted that I would, but I would like a little time to do them. Nevertheless, I got two opposes and a neutral within hours for not answering Filll's questions. Another point is the number of questions. I don't think anyone should be allowed to ask more than two or three questions. I've seen people come to RfAs and add 5 or 6 questions, making a mockery of the process. It's not 20 questions. Ask a question if you have investigated the candidate and have something you'd like clarified. No going to all the RfAs and tossing questions every which way. Finally, the primary reason for a support or oppose should not be the questions, unless an answer represents a really egregious misunderstanding of policy. Do the work. Investigate the candidate.
  6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
    Everyone who votes should be fair to the candidate and be prepared to defend their position. Nonsense such as "Oppose - admin-coached", "Oppose - self-nom", "Oppose - Isn't the right age for me" should be thrown right out the window. Base it on the candidate's behavior. Enough of prima facie opposes which assume bad faith. Finally, I find "per x" opposes to be ridiculous. Pure vote-stacking and puts the lie to the idea of "consensus". Explain your oppose. If you find someone else's evidence compelling, explain why. The worst is "per all of the above", especially because if we're dealing with a normal RfA, "all of the above" will contain some lies, smears, and downright malicious opposes.
  7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
    If a candidate wishes to withdraw, they should be allowed to do so. It should be encouraged once it becomes clear that the RfA will not finish close to the arbitrary threshold of 70%.
  8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closures)
    I think bureaucrats should read RfAs more carefully and not rely exclusively upon the 70-80% range. If the RfA process is not a vote, the bureacrats should stop treating it as one. Finally, I wish 'crats would explain their rationale in closing RfAs the way they do. Unless it's a basically unanimous pass or an obvious failure, there should be an explanation to show that the closing 'crat read and understood the issues involved.
  9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
    I think NAS is a good thing. Most admins are familiar with policy to some degree, but once promoted, they should familiarize themselves with all areas of admin duties, because they may be called upon by users who notice their administrator status.
  10. Recall (WP:AOR)
    It's a hack put in place because of the lack of a way for the community to desysop someone. Since administrators put themselves there voluntarily, I don't see how much it helps. What we really need is a real method for desysopping admins. If an admin abuses his or her position, it should not require an ArbCom case to be resolved. The real problem is that the truly troublesome administrators are not open for recall anyway, so what's the use? Finally, admins can at any time change the conditions. It's a game where the rules can be twisted to your liking. Here I discussed one of the reasons why I believe it to be silly. If an admin went rogue, wouldn't he/she remove themselves from the recall category or refuse to give up the tools if recalled? It's totally up to the admin. Stewards cannot force an admin to abide by the recall provisions.

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 trusted editor who is given additional tools because the community trusts him or her. The role of an administrator is also a responsibility, in that an admin should stay active and help out with admin duties whenever he or she has the time.
  2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
    Patience, civility, maturity, calmness, humility, and knowledge of policy. I wrote up a brief essay awhile back on this. User:Enigmaman/Admin

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

  1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
    I have voted a number of times. Explanation of how and when I vote. I think anyone who votes should be prepared to explain their position more fully, if asked. I have never been asked, but if I ever was, I would be perfectly happy to go into more detail on why I supported or opposed.
  2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
    Yes, I have, and it was a very stressful unpleasant experience. Among the opposers, assumptions of bad faith were rampant. Additionally, there appeared to be disruptive canvassing going on.
  3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
    Neutrals are somewhat useless to me, and I think comments there would do just as well in the Discussion section.
    Every administrator promoted before 6/2006 should have to stand for adminship again or give up their tools. Many of those admins are either not qualified or simply are inactive. Clear the clutter in the admin ranks.
    A lot of the problems with RfA could be avoided if: 1)Voters looked at a candidate's contributions for a few minutes before supporting/opposing. 2)Voters entered the process in good faith and with a somewhat open mind. 3)Canvassing were done away with.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 21:04 on 20 June 2008.