User:Gatoclass/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:

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:
 * 1) Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
 * Yes, good idea. Someone nominated me for adminship once without asking my permission first, which ended up being a rather unpleasant experience. People should definitely be asked if they want to stand first.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Not sure about this one.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * No problem with any of these. I don't regard self-nominators as necessarily inferior candidates (although, because of frivolous or unwise nominations, they sometimes are).
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * I am strongly opposed to it. I don't believe a candidate should inform anyone of his nomination except perhaps to leave a message at the top of his own user/talk pages. Anyone who wants to see who is currently standing only has to go to the RFA page, canvassing all your buddies looks bad and potentially distorts the process. Conversely, canvassing a nominee's opponents is also unfair. Supporters should not canvas on behalf of a candidate either. We don't tolerate votestacking in other wiki processes and I don't see why it should be tolerated on RFA either. I think candidates who are caught canvassing on their own behalf should be disqualified, even after the fact of having passed their RFA.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Works well I think.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * It can be a very tough and confronting process, especially because of the "lynch mob" mentality that can at times take hold when a nomination starts to go awry. I also think there's a problem when a nomination can get sunk by just one or two injudicious diffs. But then, that is a wikiwide problem, it's not just confined to RFA and there are no easy solutions for it.
 * I also think it's worth noting however, that a considerable number of candidates who fail their first or second RFA end up succeeding if they persist. So I think that demonstrates that the process is really not as harsh as it may first appear.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * Thank goodness for this option. No-one should have to be publicly pilloried beyond their breaking point. Candidates should be free to withdraw at any stage.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * What are the alternatives? Seems to work fine.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * Good idea in general, but shouldn't be compulsory.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * I think recall is pointless and only opens administrators to harassment. Admins need to be able to do their job without fear or favour and they can't do that if they are constantly looking over their shoulder worrying about having to face a recall. I think the processes currently in place for desysopping rogue admins are more than adequate. However, those who want to set conditions for their recall needn't be prevented from doing so.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:
 * 1) How do you view the role of an administrator?
 * It's a position of extra responsibility. This means not only in having extra tools available, but also in behaving in a way that doesn't alienate other users or bring the project into disrepute. One is not only a caretaker, but also to some degree an ambassador, responsible for fostering harmonious relationships and positive outcomes.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * The ability to count to ten before replying. A text-only medium is a great advantage in this respect, and consequently I think there is little excuse for incivility (although, at the same time, occasionally calling a spade a spade is practically unavoidable). In general, an admin needs good communication skills. Admins must also have good judgement and a good grasp of policy, or else be prepared to use their tools only in areas they are thoroughly familiar with.


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes, I have voted in several, and regretted my vote on one or two occasions! I don't vote often because I find it difficult and time-consuming to assess a candidate's overall record. But I do keep an eye on the RFA page in case any nic I feel I do have sufficient familiarity with pops up.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes, stood twice (including one occasion where I was pushed) for one failure and one success. The failed candidacy was a suprisingly confronting experience, even though I had had prior warning. It took me a little time to get over it.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * I don't like the pile-on that sometimes occurs after someone presents a bad diff or two, but in general I'm in favour of maintaining high standards, so I think that the RFA process is what might be described as a necessary evil. If someone had come up with a better process, that would be good, but AFAIK no-one has. If someone has some concrete proposals on how to improve the process, I'm always willing to consider them.

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 08:38 on 21 June 2008.