User:Esprit15d/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
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 have no problem with the current method.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * I am not familiar with this term, but if it means that someone helps someone to become an admin, then we need more of this. I think it should be voluntary (to receive and give).  But if someone fails a RfA and coaching would appear to remedy their weak areas, then I think there should be a ready coalition of volunteers admins available as a WikiProject.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * I have no problem with any of these methods. There are obvious conflict of issue areas with self-noms in theory, but in practice, the process is adversarial, so there isn't a lot of room for a person to skew the results. Also, in reality, a lot of third-party nominations are an editor nominating someone because someone asked them to.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * Advertising I don't have a problem with as long as it's random (on the candidate's user pages or in their signature) But canvassing I have a problem with since people canvass (naturally) among their own fellowship/friends, unfairly skewing the electorate.  It's the equivalent of receiving campaign money from special interest groups.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Some questions get off the beaten path, but otherwise, even bad questions are good practice for the insanity and discretion that an admin will have to use.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Currently I have not problem with it. It would be nice to have an explanation on support votes clarifying: support based on above discussion; support based on personal experience with the editor; support based on discussion and experience.  This will help the RfA person properly weight the votes, and to access bandwagon voting.  But currently, it is good enough.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * 2) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * 3) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * 4) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * To me, all admins are by definition open to recall. I am an admin and have not officially opened myself to recall, but I think it is understood that an admin could be snatched; there doesn't have to be some declaration like a political party.  I've seen ppl use this recall issue to cast suspicion on admins that aren't open and to champion dumb admins just because they are.  It's much ado about nothing.  Regardless of your declaration, if you suck you can get pulled, if you do a good, or at least uncontroversial, job you can stay.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * To me, all admins are by definition open to recall. I am an admin and have not officially opened myself to recall, but I think it is understood that an admin could be snatched; there doesn't have to be some declaration like a political party.  I've seen ppl use this recall issue to cast suspicion on admins that aren't open and to champion dumb admins just because they are.  It's much ado about nothing.  Regardless of your declaration, if you suck you can get pulled, if you do a good, or at least uncontroversial, job you can stay.
 * To me, all admins are by definition open to recall. I am an admin and have not officially opened myself to recall, but I think it is understood that an admin could be snatched; there doesn't have to be some declaration like a political party.  I've seen ppl use this recall issue to cast suspicion on admins that aren't open and to champion dumb admins just because they are.  It's much ado about nothing.  Regardless of your declaration, if you suck you can get pulled, if you do a good, or at least uncontroversial, job you can stay.

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?
 * To be an exemplar, expert, mentor (voluntarily) and enforcer. Of these, enforcement carries the most responsibility and being exemplary is mandatory.  Dealing with a rogue, haughty and/or sloppy admins is one of the major causes of WikiStress and a huge source of discouragement to other editors.  Since we are a volunteer effort, discouragement is the bane of our project.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Above all humility. Just because you (admittedly) know policy and have tools does not mean you know everything about every subject and every case.  Listen to your fellow editors, be willing to apologize and make thoughtful (not rash) decisions based on the present case, not past cases. While experience is certainly an asset, its not a template.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes, but not often. Only on obviously good choices.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * I have, and passed overwhelmingly, with only one dissent, which was that guy who always votes against self-noms. It was very smooth. I answered the questions got feedback.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * I think trolls should be banned from the process. They clog the process up and detract from the proceedings.  People who vote at least 5 times in a consistent way that is obviously not in harmony with the RfA process.  Like someone who always supports Redskins fans or someone who always opposes people who self-nom. This should be done at the discretion of the RfA moderator, should last six months and should be challengeable with the normal unblocking procedures (although this is not a full block).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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 19:04 on 30 June 2008.

,