User:Matilda/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:

  • I have borrowed most of this from Bduke - he seemed to say exactly what I wanted to say! (he released under GFDL and so do I ;-) )
  1. Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
    I don't recall eve having invited someone to be an admin, but I was invited myself. At first I declined, but accepted another invitation some time later.
  2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
    I dislike this, whether it is formal or informal. Obviously you get feedback on your actions and that is enough.
  3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
    I am not opposed to self-nomination, but I would prefer candidates to be nominated by someone else. The nominator can step back and judge whether the candidate is ready. I see no particular reason for co-nomination and excessive co-nomination is a bad idea.
  4. Advertising and canvassing
    Should not take place.
  5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
    I think the number of question asked is now excessive. People should express their opinion if they know something of the candidate's work. I do not !vote unless I know something of the candidate.
  6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
    Being admin should be no big deal, so I think all opposers should give a reason for opposing, but all supporters should not have to.
  7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
    The process is stressful for many people and I can understand why people bail out if it is not going well. I think it important that the community maintain excellent standards of behaviour in such a stressful forum - it is very much the candidate's reputation which is being examined and I recall I didn't enjoy it even though my RfA went through hassle free.
  8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
    I have no particular view. It seems to be handled well.
  9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
    Should not be necessary. Instructions are good and each admin action page should have clear instructions
  10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
    I am not happy with this process and have not volunteered to take part. Clearly if a lot of editors disagreed with what I am doing as an admin, I would resign, but I do not find a process for this to be helpful.

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?
    Not a big deal. There are backlogs. Admins should do what they can to clear some of them up. Admins do not have to use all the tools or work in all areas. We can always use more admins.
  2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
    Basically the main attribute is calmness. Administrators need to have time to think things through. I suspect the worst admin decisions are those done by admins trying to do too much. I do think they need to show a good knowledge of the fundamental wikipedia policies and the intent of the project. More detailed policies they can learn as they go.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

  1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
    I vote when I see an editor I know who is nominated. I rarely contribute if I know nothing about the editor. I am prepared to further research those editors I have already come across.
  2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
    Yes. I was nominated by a very good admin, who did an excellent nomination. I cleared the barrier with no hassle. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AYArktos way back in early 2006. Although there was no hassle I do remember it being somewhat stressful - not knowing what would come up. I have sympathy for those where the process escalates into something they cannot control.
  3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
    I think it works OK - we get admins who are trusted by the community. I would like to see a strong community hand to ensure that community standards of behaviour recognise that candidates are putting their neck out and need to be treated with dignity and that they should not be too stressed by the 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:Matilda/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 01:37 on 26 June 2008.