User:Sephiroth BCR/RfA Questions

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)

   The nominator who is selecting the candidate should have a good grasp of the current climate at RfA and a reasonable guess as to how the candidate will be received. They should investigate the candidate's contributions thoroughly to determine whether there are any extenuating factors that would be unearthed and used as a form of opposition to the candidacy, and whether it will cause the candidate's RfA to fail or not. The candidate, if he or she is not already aware, should be informed of the nature of the RfA process and what it entails in terms of the intensive review of his or her contributions. This is generally done by the people more experienced with RfA (especially those who are already administrators), but in some cases, a candidate is presented by a nominator who has little to no idea what the climate is at RfA, and may put the candidate through unneeded stress should the candidate be a poor choice for an administrator. The majority of the time, the above is not a problem, and those being nominated have a fairly good understanding of what an RfA entails, but nominators should not treat an offer to nominate lightly.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   As a current administrator coach, I believe the process works fine and should be encouraged. I have seen times in which people have complained that it produces users that are able to pass RfA, but not necessarily be effective administrators. This can be effectively negated by the nature of the coach, and coaches should ensure that the candidate is ready should they acquire the administrative tools. A coach, especially if he or she is conscientious of the climate at RfA and what is expected of a prospective administrator, is able to point out items in the user's contributions that need correcting that the user may have overlooked, and can be an effective source of aid as a mentor. Coaches should take care, however, not to give the appearance of gaming the system (have so many AIV reports, AfD comments, and so on by such and such date), and instead, give general guidelines for the coachees to follow, pointing out specific mistakes if necessary. The coachee should figure out what it means to be an effective administrator by themselves - the coach should do nothing more than point them in the right direction.

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

   I believe all of the above are appropriate, although it sometimes is mildly annoying to have excessive amounts of co-nominators (four or more), although this is usually for candidates that are considered quite exceptional. In no case do I believe that self-nominations are inappropriate, although the participants in the RfA should be free to voice their concerns if a self-nomination occurs too soon after a previous RfA, and they believe that the concerns presented at that RfA have not been addressed. Construing this as "power hunger", as it has been by certain users, comes too far in my opinion, and I believe it is a result of a candidate's inexperience if anything. Such a candidate should be pointed towards administrator coaching or another venue to improve himself or herself before their next RfA.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   While the candidate may place {{RfX-notice}} or similar on their userpage, in no circumstance should any sort of canvassing be allowed, and it should reflect negatively on the candidate (to what degree should be determined by consensus on the RfA). On the flip side, no other user should advertise the RfA, whether it is to another user, WikiProject, or any other venue. Oppose !votes that are garnered through canvassing should be heavily scrutinized, but outright striking of their comments should be discouraged, as it is the decision of the closing bureaucrat on how to view the canvassed opposes. At times, these opposes may carry valid arguments, but it may also be the result of users who have an axe to grind with the candidate or similar.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Questions should be reasonably limited to those pertinent to the candidate, and should primarily focus on the areas that the candidate wishes to work in per their answer to question one. However, the "stock" questions so-to-speak ("When should you use a cool-down block?", "What is the difference between a block and a ban?", etc.) whose answers the candidate can acquire by merely perusing previous RfAs should be discouraged. Questions that focus on the candidate's contributions ("Why did you mark this article for deletion under CSD A7?", "In retrospect, would you have handled this situation differently?", etc.) are very appropriate and illuminate much more details about the candidate than the aforementioned stock questions. Questions concerning potential administrative situations ("If the article contained [whatever content], would you delete it, and under what rationale?", "If this user was reported to AIV with [so many warnings, so many edits that were vandalism], would you block them", etc.) are also useful, but questioners should take care not to place questions that are very difficult or trick questions (especially ones that are controversial and have legitimate arguments for both sides), but rather those that are fairly clear if the candidate has a good grasp on the relevant policies and guidelines and the current practices at the relevant administrator boards (AIV, RFP, etc.)

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

   Although the current system does have many problems, I see no alternative that would function better. Both supporters and opponents are required to fashion some rationale (even if it is per another's argument, and supporters have the benefit of an implied "per nom" if they don't put anything) concerning why they are !voting in whatever manner. The only other method I have seen is one that mirrors RfCs, with different topics presented concerning aspects of the candidate ("Civility concerns", "Excellent article contributions", etc.) and the participants support or oppose very statement. While this does point illuminate the candidate's strengths and faults better, it is much more difficult for a bureaucrat to verify whether consensus exists, especially in close !votes. As such, the present system seems to be the best among all evils, but I welcome ideas concerning alternative methods.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   The candidate should be free to withdraw from the process at any time. It is entirely the candidate's decision to go through with the RfA, and the feelings of the candidate should be respected in all cases. The intensive review that occurs during an RfA can awaken old wounds, may be excessively stressful, or other maladies, and as such, the candidate should have the freedom to withdraw whenever he or she sees fit.

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

   The NOTNOW closes are "nicer" for lack of a better term for candidates that are very new users or have little-to-no chance of passing, and I believe it is the best way to resolve such an RfA, although those giving oppose !votes should take great care to be as civil and understanding as possible. Any well-established user should be able to close the RfA per NOTNOW in these circumstances. As for the normal closing of RfAs via bureaucrats, I have no complaints with the formal process, as very controversial closes (demon for instance) occur very rarely, and bureaucrats generally have a very good idea about what constitutes consensus at an RfA. Given the extremely strict standards for passing at RfB, only the most qualified candidates pass, and as such, are very knowledgeable concerning RfA.

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

   The New Admin School is definitely a good method for new administrators to test their tools while under no pressure, but does not actually convey a sense of when to use their tools beyond the technical details. I believe any post-RfA coaching or having a mentor is excessive, but those who do pass RfA should exercise due caution with their tools, and initially tackle only non-controversial cases at wherever they are comfortable at. That said, administrators that use their tools inappropriately for an extended period of time should be encouraged to have an informal mentor, or the community should be able to mandate that an administrator has a mentor if improper use continues.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I strongly believe that any formalized recall process has the same faults that the old community sanction noticeboard had, and turns into nothing but a lynching exercise at worst. If anything, ArbCom sorts out administrators that use their tools in an exceptionally inappropriate manner; however, beyond that, administrators should not have to bear another review process after their RfA. For candidates that fall short of the excessive misuse that would warrant an ArbCom case, the community-mandated mentor may be an appropriate method for administrators that misuse their tools, but not in an exceptionally controversial manner.

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?

   An administrator is a user who has several tools that are vital for the management of the encyclopedia. While the tools themselves do not confer any status on the user in question, they do suggest, however implicitly, that the user is a respected and trusted user that others may go to for aid if necessary, as he or she has the necessary experience. Given the sensitive nature of many the tools administrators have, however, they should expect to be subject to scrutiny, especially in the case of blocks, deletions, or similarly controversial cases.

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

   An administrator should be civil in discussion, have the knowledge about how to properly utilize the tools that are allotted to him or her, and be conscientious of other users, especially newer users that may not understand that an administrator is not a higher position and look towards the administrator for guidance and support. They should be responsive towards criticism, mediators, and in all, responsible individuals.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?

   Yes, many times. At worst, it can be a process that becomes an excessive source of stress from the candidate, especially those with several flaws, that are forced to view their faults, sometimes in a non-flattering manner. On the other hand, it can be a great source of constructive criticism for the candidate, who may take the opposes to heart and change for them. However, these individuals do not constitute all of the prospective administrators, and as such, some have taken such RfAs personally, and it can potentially jeopardize their continued involvement in Wikipedia. The absolute worst case scenario is when opposes at an RfA appear that are nothing more than people with an axe to grind, POV-pushers, and the similar, and in this case, even participants that offer constructive criticism can be construed as part of the aforementioned group of trolls. We're all volunteers, and no volunteer should have to deal with non-constructive criticism that is nothing more than trolling.

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

   Yes. My RfA was successful at 64/1/2, and I can attest it was a very positive experience. The questions (in my opinion) were not very difficult (although I admit parroting part of my answers to Avruch's questions from the RfAs of other users that were going on at the time, as I thought they were boiler plate questions), and indeed, some of them (Iterator's for instance), I considered intriguing and I enjoyed answering them. I believe that the majority of my support was a result of my AfD participation, frequent civility, and my rather enormous amount of article contributions (two featured topics, about twenty featured lists, one featured article, five or six good articles). The lone oppose was beset by five users that immediately discounted it, and I felt no apprehension from it. The neutral !vote from Dekimasu brought up a legitimate point that I was happy to oblige (he later admitted on my talk page that he didn't come back in time to change to support). Given what I have seen at other RfAs, I can now attest that my RfA was far more positive and easier (in the emotional sense rather than the review process itself) than others I have seen.

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

   I think reforming the process is very difficult because there is not a clear answer to our problems. One thing that can be alleviated is the stress of the RfA, and it can be more strictly enforced that those who oppose must give constructive rationales. A candidate who fails to pass RfA should come from it with a fairly clear idea of what he or she needs to improve on if they still want to be an administrator. I don't believe the process itself is necessarily bad, but rather that those involved should limit themselves to valid, constructive criticism. We cannot prevent a candidate from feeling disappointment from a failed RfA, but we should take every precaution to prevent it from degenerating into an attack board for those who dislike the candidate, or again, those with nothing more than an axe to grind. I look forward to the answers others give to these questions, and may change some of my points as a result, but I think what I am essentially putting forth will remain the same. I wish the best of luck to those who wish to reform RfA, and hopefully, we can take away something substantive from this.

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:Sephiroth BCR/RfA Questions]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation. This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC).