User:Daniel Case/RfA review

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 don't have a problem with this. I was invited to do so when I did.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * ...It's sort of difficult to coach it, I think, but I don't fault people for trying.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * ...Again, I don't see a problem with this. Nominators, whoever they are, are incidental to the fitness of the nominee.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * ...Now here I have a comment. The one time I haven't voted "support" in an RfA, it was "neutral" because the nominee canvassed. He's turned out to be a good admin, but I feel that the canvassing prohibition is actually a very good one and essential to the process. However, there have been many RfAs where I would have liked to say something and I didn't know the user had been through it until after the fact. Perhaps there should be some sort of tool where you put down a list of users who you'd like to be notified if they're ever nominated for adminship and you get notified if they do? Or some sort of regularly scheduled bot-delivered bulletin on who's been nominated in the past three days? Unless you hang out at RfA (and please let me never become one of those users), you get too busy doing other things like, perish the thought, editing and improving articles and you really don't keep up.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * ...Again I have no problem, but since as my above response makes clear I don't follow RfA enough to really feel I can form an opinion. From what I do see, some questions should perhaps be asked more frequently, I guess.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * ...Not a problem with how this is currently handled. Since a lot of adminship comes down to who you trust, most editors don't feel the need to give too much in the way of reasons for a support vote beyond vouching for the nominee's character.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * ...I don't see a problem with how this is currently handled.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * ...No different a part of the process, really, than closing deletion debates. Granted, there's a lot more at stake.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * ...Might be good to emulate the US educational example and have some sort of formalized mentoring process after a successful RfA. A lot of this goes on informally, in any event.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * ...From reading other responses, I wasn't aware this wasn't standardized. Definitely should be some moves made in that direction.

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?
 * ...So many things ... cop on the beat, camp counselor, janitor, priest in confessional, team leader, tech support ... it can take so many forms.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * ...A sense of professionalism above all else. Do it like you're getting paid. An admin not only represents Wikipedia to many editors, particularly newbies, s/he represents in the colloquial, intransitive sense. Whether they want to that day or not.

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. I haven't had a problem.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * ...Yes, and I got the tools. It was pleasant, though a little tense. It's always nice to see that you have as many friends as you thought you did, though if you have a long edit history you have to know there's always something someone who wants to oppose for opposition's sake can find. Nominees better be ready to explain everything, and I think some RfAs have gone off the rails that otherwise would have been accepted because of this.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * ...Not now, no. I have some ideas for reform possibilities if people are interested, but they can come further in the process.

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.

*   added by  at

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

This question page was generated by RFAReview at 03:29 on 24 June 2008.