User:AstroHurricane001/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)

   Any registered user can nominate another registered user for adminship, provided they both have adequate experience. The nominator should pick a user they believe will do well as an admin, have shown the skills needed, and whom they view as well-respected and outstanding.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I think that admin coaching is a helpful service, particularly for new or inexperienced users, or for those who want a better idea of what the community thinks of them as an admin candidate. I disagree with those who oppose solely on the basis that the candidate has gone through admin coaching.

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

   A good nomination should throughly introduce the candidate. A large number of co-noms may show that the candidate is well-respected within the community, as long there isn't simply too many of them. I think that self-nominations are acceptable, and that one should not support or oppose solely on the basis of whether someone else nominated the candidate or they nominated themselves. Co-nominations help to further introduce the candidate, and can be used both for nominations by another user and self-nominations.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Campaigning for other users to participate in their RfA, even if not exliciptly for support, is not encouraged. I have no problems with users "advertising" their RfA on their own userpage, but canvassing other users for participation or support will usually be looked down upon.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Additional questions can help the community to get a better idea of the knowledge, experience, and potential actions as an admin of the user. The questions are optional, but I think it is a good idea for the candidate to answer them, so that others can see their level of dedication and knowledge.

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

   The way a user !votes on the candidate should be based on a legit reason. Although reasons are not required, I think it is a good idea to provide a reason as to avoid excessive snowball pile-ons. The !voter can also provide how they decided their !vote based on a personal criteria process.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Candidates may withdrawl for several reasons, including the often-cited WP:SNOW. If the support% is below ~50%, or if the candidate feels that they are just not ready for adminship, they may choose to withdrawl. A withdrawl should not affect whether the community supports at a later RfA should they choose to run one.

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

   The bureaucrats are elected as well-respected members of the community who can be trusted with their decisions and will decide wisely. In some cirsumstances, the bureaucrats may start a discussion with each other to see whether the RfA should pass or fail. I think that NOTNOW closes can often be helpful if the RfA is clearly going to fail, but the candidate may also choose to keep it open.

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

   I think that post-admin training is helpful to those who wish to err on the side of caution when it comes to their admin actions, as not to have sometimes potentially-disastrous impacts. They should get a "feel" of their tools before they use them, to throughly understand their actions, purposes, and effects.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    The recall processes failed to gain consensus and are now labelled as inactive proposals. Administrators may themselves choose to be open to recall, however. If the admin does not want the tools anymore, they can also request desysoping. Howeverthis can lead to the admin being recalled rather arbitarily, although only a certain number of admins have ever been desysoped.

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?

   Simply put, admins are janitors. Admins are just users that have extra tools, they do not have more power or elevated status than anyone else, and criteria for their aproval should not be too strict. However, they should not be too loose either, as not to allow unsatisfactory candidates from recieving this role. Admins should be careful with their actions, always assume good faith, and discuss when they are unsure or want a review of their actions.

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

   They should be trustworthy, show dedication to the project, and be civil, constructive, and make wise decisions. They should also show their participation in processes which administrators are involved in, such as vandal-fighting, deletion, and article improvement.

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 in about a dozen RfAs. I usually only participate in ones with users I'm familiar with, although that may change if I develop RfA voting criteria for all users. I mostly look for varied participation throught the project, as well as good answers to questions.

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

   I haven't been an admin candidate yet, but I may become one in the near future.

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

   RfA is a rather adequate process, but there are still things we can improve on. Many criteria, however, are not set in stone or are unwritten, which may lead to excessive debates.

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:AstroHurricane001/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 23:03 on 20 June 2008.