User:Indubitably/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

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)
    I think this is a wonderful aspect of RFA. It is not only often an honor for the candidate, but it can also be helpful for voters when the nominee is someone they have great trust in and respect for.
  2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
    I tried formal coaching and did not like it. I switched to more of a mentorship with someone I looked up to. That was much better. It was more personal and easier to learn, as there was more one-on-one. Rather than assignments, which I think can be helpful for some, it was more of a learn by example process. Really, I think it depends both on the coach and the editor. You need a good match to get it right.
  3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
    I'm not opposed to self-nominations, as some people are. I prefer to see a nominator, but I think it's better to nominate yourself rather than be nominated by someone who doesn't qualify for adminship themselves. I prefer to see admin noms. This is because they know what being an administrator is really about. I think most people don't realize exactly what all it entails until you are one, even for those who spend a lot of time in the admin areas. It's hard to foresee the stress that comes with it, and I believe admins are the best suited to spot candidates who can handle it.
  4. Advertising and canvassing
    I think simple canvassing should be allowed by everyone, including the candidate. Nothing more than the link to the top of the candidate's RFA page dropped in emails and talk pages or in IRC, etc. And on Wikiproject pages, a simple "[User:Example|Example] is currently running for [WP:RFA/Example|adminship]."
  5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
    The standard questions that everyone asks are pointless. It's too easy to just go browse the successful RFAs to get the answers. I like more personal questions, where unique examples are given for the candidate to think about and answer. I also like the questions where a conflict or situation from the candidates early editing is pulled up and a question asked about how they would handle it now, with more experience and as an admin. Who can't go look for those answers.
  6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
    I think simple reasoning, and even a straight signature, for support is fine for the pretty clear cut cases. When you're support 35 and there are many good reasons for support above you, there's not really a need to clarify when there are no opposes or just a few. However, when it's a more controversial RFA, I think supports and opposes alike should give detailed reasoning. As it's not a straight vote, and weight of argument matters, you want it to be as clear as possible. Opposes and neutrals should always, in my opinion, have a detailed reasoning, or at least a "per [someone who gave a detailed reason]". Neutrals with no explanation are just a waste of kb... and really, opposes with no reasoning aren't worth much either.
  7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
    I think when it's obviously tanking, withdrawing is a good option. Saves the candidate further humiliation and stress, and saves the community and the 'crats time. And, in some rare occasions, when success is possible, but there's a lot of conflict and drama, it's the mature way to go, out of respect for the community.
  8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
    A great replacement to WP:SNOW, which was harsh but necessary before this was created.
  9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
    I don't know how the NAS is now, but it sucked when I first became an admin. I was surely uber-annoying in the IRC admin channel with my endless questions, but that's what was most helpful for me. Another reason I like admin nominators is because they can be there to guide their candidate once they become an admin, which my mentor/nom did for me.
  10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
    Who knows how well it really works. I think desysoping should be relatively simple... on a level with RFA. I think admins would behave better if they knew their tools could be yanked pretty quick. At the same time, humans have moments of bad judgment, make mistakes, so you don't want admins being dropped over minor issues, or even lone bigger issues. Most admin actions are reversible, though not always the damage. So, for that reason, I've recently come to the conclusion that AOR may be the best option we have right now. But there should be some sort of standard to the criteria, as one I've read is practically impossible. I think if ArbCom is preferable to your criteria, you've defeated the purpose.


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?
    Some people say it's like a janitor. And, in a way, it is. But I really view it more like parenthood, in a way. Yea, it's your job to clean house, but you're also the one that editors come to when they need to tell on the actions of someone else, and it's on you to deal with it. Editors often look up to administrators and turn to them for guidance. You're expected to know all the rules, and often administrators are the leading voice behind changing them.
  2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
    Trustworthiness, communicativeness, approachability, maturity, broad experience, and a sense of humor. The last one is important for me because admins with no humor bring the morale down for everyone else.


Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

  1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
    I've voted in many. It's typically pretty uneventful. I was questioned once for my wording when opposing a very immature candidate. I followed up my oppose stating that in that he was only 12, I believe it was, it explained his immaturity. A few people were offended and I was later labeled an ageist in my RFA for it. It shows that a lot of people are too sensitive, look for drama where it doesn't exist, and examples how WP:AGF is used more in acronym form in uncivil ways than it's actually followed. This is a common problem in RFA.
  2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
    Mine was a dramabomb. Weightless opposes, vindictive and personal comments. A joke at times. It was stressful, no doubt, but there were legitimate opposes and there was a lot of good feedback to build from and work on.
  3. 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:Indubitably/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 20:29 on 13 June 2008.