User:Tony1/RfA review

Questions
I've read a few responses, and I mostly agree with GMaxwell's.

Overriding comments:

The questions don't suit what I want to say.


 * The main issues for me are that an often brutal, chaotic selection process does not effectively:
 * 1) prevent the promotion of admins who abuse their role, throwing their weight around;
 * 2) ensure that admins are likely to set an example, especially in relation to civility and assuming good faith; and
 * 3) minimise the likelihood that admins will "stick up" for each other in disputes on the basis of admin status alone.


 * Despite the inability of the system to screen out those who may behave badly, ironically, the culture and process are such that candidates' history of the odd squabble or incivility are magnified out of all proportion. (The US presidential process is similarly prone to muckraking.) It seems odd that unsuitable people get through because they've held off their squabbles until they become admins; but it's the only way of explaining the phenomenon.


 * It could be that other functional aspects apart from the initial selection process are contributing factors; isn't there some privileged discussion page accessible only by admins? Bad move to have that.


 * A name change would be good, to remove the notion that they are administrators in the managerial, hierarchical sense.


 * An effective system of accountability, complaint, warning, disciplinary action, and removal of adminship is essential; possibly ArbCom should appoint a subcommittee to run this aspect. Or bureaucrats might do it (they don't seem to do much at the moment); simply having a decent disciplinary system in place would curb most of the behavioural problems, I think.


 * Mediation of the voting process is essential to steer RfAs towards civility, moderation and relevance when they go off the rails. I think it's appalling that people end up being scarred by the experience. I'm suspicious of the anyone-can-vote process, which is vulnerable to stacking and concealed conflict of interest. TONY   (talk)  12:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * 3) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * 4) Advertising and canvassing
 * 5) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * 6) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * 7) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * 8) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * 9) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * 10) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * 2) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * 3) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * 4) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * 5) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * 2) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

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?
 * 2) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * 2) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * 3) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship 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 12:39 on 23 June 2008.