User:Ultraexactzz/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[edit]

When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
...There are typically four types of candidates that I see.
The first, new and inexperienced editors, can be set aside; many of these, though well intentioned, fall under WP:NOTNOW and other policies - and a few end up becoming admins anyway, down the line.

The second group is newer editors who seek adminship when they become "eligible"; they typically have between 3000 and 8000 edits, a year or less on the project, and a clear block log. In some cases, adminship is seen as a natural step in an editor's growth on the project.

The third group is similar to the second; users who have some experience, and who help out in areas frequented by admins (such as ANI, AFD, and so forth). This is where I see many supports read as "You mean he's not already an admin?" Again, adminship is a natural next step for an editor who works closely with admins and admin tasks.

The fourth group is experienced, long-time editors who are badgered into becoming admins. These editors have tens of thousands of edits, a long history spanning years, and a good rapport with many editors. These RFAs tend to have high participation, both for support and oppose.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
...Any process that gives admins - or potential admins - more information and guidance about what adminship is and is not is of a significant benefit to the process. In my case, coaching was intended to get me thinking about issues that admins face - when to block vs ban, fair use, and so forth. In other cases I've seen, coaching has focused on passing the RFA, which - while of value, if we assume that passing the RFA means you'll be a good admin - does little to provide insight once the RFA ends. So long as the coaching is focused on adminship and not RFA itself, I am in favor.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
...I have no problem with self-nominations versus nominations, but I'd submit that co-noms are frequently overdone.
Advertising and canvassing
...It is improper, I think, for a candidate to broadcast the fact that they are a candidate for adminship; otherwise, I can see a candidate jumping on every {{helpme}} tag that pops up, solving the problem, and then mentioning "By the way, I'm up for admin - could you put in agood word?" Not good. However, I think there is value in making the list of current candidates more readily available. Short of watchlisting RFA (where edit summaries would indicate who passed, failed, and who is added as a candidate), or keeping a tracker on one's userpage (as I do), there isn't a really good way for editors to see who is running when.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
...Candidates for office provide detailed explainations of their actions and records, and RFA candidates should be afforded the same courtesy. I believe that a large number of questions asked late in the RFA can be disruptive, and the value of those questions is lost on most of the participants in the debate, as they've already made up their minds.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
...In this case, I draw a direct comparison between RFA and the Arbcom elections. Arbcom is selected by a vote, and - even though the count of votes does not directly determine the outcome - no one makes any fuss. Since RFA is the same, I see no reason to consider its supports and opposes in the same manner. Since it is not a secret ballot, as with the board elections, I think it is reasonable to ask voters to say why they are or are not supporting a candidate.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
...Given that RFA is a (sometimes very personal) review of the candidate, I have no problems if they wish to withdraw before the natural end of the debate, especially if consensus is running strongly against promotion (2/12/0, for example). I've seen candidates continue the RFA even when there is no remote chance of success, just for the input, which speaks to their maturity and may reflect well on a future RFA.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
...The only real drama here is when the consensus is not clear. Then, we get into a situation where the bureaucrat is going to close the request on the Wrong version, regardless of whether the candidate becomes an admin or not. Every time this happens, there are renewed calls for reform at RFA, which I guess is part of why we're here now.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
...It's good for a new admin to be able to use the tools without breaking anything or angering anyone the first time through, and it sets up a list of best practices for admins to follow; hopefully, providing some good habits as new admins proceed.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
...I think recall proposals open enough to be valuable are also open enough to be gamed by a determined editor, rendering them worthless. There might be some ways to get around that, but I'm not sure what they would be.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

How do you view the role of an administrator?
...See below.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
...Admins should be calm and rational, and should be able to AGF and look at problems from the point of view of the editors involved. Almost every problem or ZOMG DRAMA on the project boils down to a matter of perspective; being able to serve as a peacemaker and defuse issues before they get really bad are two critical skills for a good admin.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
...Yes, Frequently. I think borderline (67%ish support) RFAs are rare because a good, well-reasoned oppose can snowball into 7 or 8 in a day, where a good, well-reasoned support does not seem as likely to generate additional supports.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
...Yes, and was successful on my first RFA. It was... stressful. Though I was reasonably confident that I would be successful, every oppose made me a little nervous.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
...I think, overall, that it is a good system that has not changed with the project, and that some modifications are necessary to ensure that our administrators retain consensus to use the tools.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 14:09 on 16 June 2008.