User:Orfen/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 don't think this is flawed. Most people do it the right way. As long as there isn't favoritism and candidates are nominated for the right reasons then I don't see a problem with it.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * While I think there are good aspects to this it does show a sort of eagerness to become an admin. I also had signed up for admin coaching but never gone through it and I can see how it can be seen as an eagerness to want power. I now don't see adminship as a big deal and don't think users should go through admin coaching. While I wouldn't automatically oppose someone because of admin coaching because it can be used to better prepare users for being an administrator, I think the process should steadily be encouraged to die out and let users gain experience in the natural way.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * I don't have a problem with any of the nomination processes. I do not like seeing a ton of people co-nominating however as I can sort of see it as perhaps using well respected users to influence others opinions or beating a dead horse. I would not oppose based on having too many co-nominators because I feel that would be unfair to the candidate. You can't choose who nominates you unless you are self-nominating and if you self-nominate I don't think it's a reason to oppose but there should be a lot of time between self-nominations or it looks too eager.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * I don't think any type of advertising or canvassing should be done. I think it disrupts the process especially since this would usually be done to friends or people who know the candidate well.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * I wouldn't oppose because a user chose not to answer the questions because I don't think they should be mandatory. While they provide excellent insight on a candidate their contributions are equally if not more effective than the questions themselves. I would like seeing how a candidate performs in the project itself more than how the candidate performs in presenting themselves to the community. While this is important in making first impressions they will afterall be working in the project and the work there is more important (and more destructive in some cases) than what happens in the presentation.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * I always like to provide the reason as to why I am supporting/opposing even if my opinion has already been stated. Saying per user to me seems a fast way to get it done and perhaps to get a quick edit in. I always like to clearly state why I have the stance I have and provide ways to fix, provide encouragement, or say something nice to the candidate. Every per user support/oppose can be expanded upon even if only to restate what was said before.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * I think in some cases withdrawal is appropriate. If it looks like a case of WP:SNOWBALL then I think the candidate should withdrawal. If they don't it sometimes becomes a case of beating a dead horse. While it's good to offer words of encouragement or offer another oppose I think if a clear oppose consensus is found it's best to withdrawal to show the candidate has a clear understanding that they need to improve before they are given the tools. In the end I think it looks best for the candidate if they withdrawal and it is appropriate.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * If the RfA is closed earlier by another user I don't think it's fair to the candidate. The RfA is the candidate's chance to shine and it's their chance to take the stage. I think RfAs should only be closed earlier than the seven days if there is a desire by the candidate. If the RfA is not extended or closed early by other users then I think the process is fair to every candidate.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * I think this could be a good thing. This allows users to have help with using the extra tools and doesn't just throw them out into the project without knowing what everything is for or does. This could help prevent mistakes and make each administrator as successful as they can be.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * I think admins being open to recall is a good thing. It shows that they care about the community's opinion and consensus. It also shows that they are willing to admit their mistakes. I think administrators should be able to have the tools revoked based on community consensus.

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?
 * They provide the same role as every user on Wikipedia. They help contribute to the project but have an extra set of buttons. They can perform different tasks but in the end we're all co-workers of the project and we're all striving to the same goal.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * They should be trusted and have a nice grasp on the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. They should also be civil and have clear judgment. I think they should have experience but don't think they need to participate in a set number of AfDs or have a set number of edits in another category. If the candidate doesn't intend to use the tools in a position they are not familiar with then they can slowly ease into it in the future. They don't need to be ready to use the tools in every situation. There are other admins to perform a job one is not ready to do. They should work as a team.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * I have voted before and my experience has generally been positive. I can't think of a way to change the process that would show clear consensus unless perhaps it was an anonymous process for the voters. That would could stop favoritism and the pressure to vote one way.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * I have not.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * I think the process is pretty good overall but some things could be changed. I have tried my best to provide insight where I think it should be changed above.

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 05:18 on 21 June 2008.