User:Fabrictramp/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)
 * Some people do a good job searching out quality candidates, some don't. Every time I've found something I think would be a good admin, they already are one, so I've never nominated anyone myself.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * I think either formal or informal admin coaching are a good idea. I also think there needs to be an improved voluntary new admin coaching process. (see below)
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * I have no problem with any of these. I prefer one single nom by another editor (preferably an admin), especially a nom that really paints a good picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate. I'm more likely to overlook small weaknesses if they've been dealt with upfront.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * No, no, and no. That said, I do favor the information provided by User:Tangobot.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * The number and range of questions has gotten a bit out of hand lately, and started to become a form of POV pushing.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Well-reasoned responses are important. I have often been led to research things based on the reasoning of others, and have even changed my !vote because of responses. As in AfDs, "per nom" is just about useless.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * I'm always a bit sad when I candidate withdraws, because it's a sign that things were not going well. I always hope that they wind up seeing the experience as a chance to learn and grow, but I fear they may leave the project.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * Reasons are always nice.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * When I became an admin last year, what there was of the New Admin School was hardly helpful. I would really have appreciated the chance to sign up for a mentor who would be available to answer questions.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * While I support it in theory, I worry that the process can easily be abused, especially to harass any admin who makes a tough decision. I haven't opened myself up to this process for this reason, and I don't expect others to do so, either.

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?
 * A cross between a janitor and an ambassador. Most of my admin work is in deletions, so I spend a lot of time cleaning up messes. But I also have to hold the hand of new editors who are frustrated by the deletion process and outcomes. I strive, where possible, to help them see where they can make positive contributions to the project, in spite of an early setback. Not all are willing to do so, but I do what I can.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Good communication skills, especially with frustrated editors, is my number one requirement. Number two is the ability (and willingness) to read and understand policy, and make a judgement that conforms to policy.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * yes. My voting experience was positive, although I do get frustrated at the amount of wikidrama that can occur.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes. Surprisingly easy, which I attribute to a fluke, rather than any specialness on my part. :)
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * It's the worst possible method, except for all the others. The process is fine; we just need, as a community, to remember that too much wikidrama doesn't help the cause.

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 22:36 on 21 June 2008.