| A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
|---|
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:
- Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
- I think that every editor should look at adminship as something they will get, eventually. Every editor should strive to act like an adminship candidate at all times. When "selecting" candidates it should be a question of which editor to promote next, not whether to promote someone. The goal should be that every regular contributer becomes an admin, eventually. I think this is the original goal of WP:NBD.
- Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
- Used after a successful RfA, it's invaluable, used before it's just teaching to the test which doesn't accomplish anything. I don't think it hurts a candidate but there are better ways to figure things out.
- Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
- Nominations should be left to existing admins and trusted users. I don't think self-noms are ever really an adequate expression of the community's trust in a user and usually happen far too early. This is not to say that editors who will make great admins can't self-nominate but I think that someone will notice when you're actually ready.
- Advertising and canvassing
- I have no problem with posting notices in places where you're often part of the discussion. I seriously doubt that anyone who interracts with me often actually looks at my user page, and without some canvassing all you get are admin hopefuls and regulars commenting, not users who know the editor in question. I do think any advertisements should be contained to places where the candidate is a regular contributor.
- Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
- There are too many questions posted which can be paraphrased from the cheatsheet. The only questions raised should be opinion and critical reasoning questions (and not like the challenge) and even then not many. I would much prefer questions to the effect of "Show us examples where you have handled situations well" "Where do you contribute now." Judge a candidate on their record not on the elloquence of their speech-writing. While it matters how well an admin expresses themself, the worst vandal could be just as eloquent.
- Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
- Votes are worthless. One good point (ie not "I don't like him, he's mean" which sounds a lot like "I don't like it") raised in opposition, supported by others, and unanswered by the editors actions or rebuttal should be enough to disqualify. Conversely, the lack of such a point should result in success. No vote counting please.
- Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
- Better than a snowball close but not appropriate after more than a few votes. Candidates (successful or otherwise) should take all the critical feedback they can get and use it to be a better candidate (as Peyton Manning would say, "Rub some dirt on it"). Though I will say that DHMO's withdrawal was stylish.
- Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes
WP:NOTNOW closes)
- Must be done somehow and someone has to make the judgment call. I just can't tolerate "required percentages" to detirmin outcome (see "Election"). I still prefer WP:SNOW to WP:NOTNOW as "it just won't pass, sorry" is a better message than "oh aren't you cute now stop bothering us".
- Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
- Should be expected if not required, also finding an admin mentor is a great idea. Some candidate will just hit the ground running and not need the training but most will benefit from some direction.
- Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
- All admins should be open to recall and be willing to shelve the mop (at least temporarily) when other admins call their actions into question. But the process as it stands seems overly arbitrary and pretty useless. I'd bet it usually ends up at ArbCom anyway
When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:
- How do you view the role of an administrator?
- Just an editor with less restrictions. No more and no less. There are certain pressures to uphold greater standards but we should all be held to such ideals. The definition of a "good" editor should be synonymous with a "good" admin.
- What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
- Willingness to discuss any action taken and live by the comunity consensus. No soft paternalism. If the community wants to do something stupid, then tell them about it, but live by the consensus.
Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:
- Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
- Fairly often. I am only annoyed that it becomes a vote-counting exercise rather than an examination of a candidate. Also see "Election" above.
- Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
- No, not as yet.
- Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
- The outlook we should have when looking at a candidate should be one of "Are there any significant reasons not to trust them with the mop?" rather than, as exists now, "Have the people they've conflicted with in the past left the encyclopedia yet?"
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.
* [[User:Alanbly/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~
Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.
This question page was generated by {{ RFAReview}} at 16:41 on 20 June 2008.
| A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
|---|
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:
- Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
- I think that every editor should look at adminship as something they will get, eventually. Every editor should strive to act like an adminship candidate at all times. When "selecting" candidates it should be a question of which editor to promote next, not whether to promote someone. The goal should be that every regular contributer becomes an admin, eventually. I think this is the original goal of WP:NBD.
- Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
- Used after a successful RfA, it's invaluable, used before it's just teaching to the test which doesn't accomplish anything. I don't think it hurts a candidate but there are better ways to figure things out.
- Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
- Nominations should be left to existing admins and trusted users. I don't think self-noms are ever really an adequate expression of the community's trust in a user and usually happen far too early. This is not to say that editors who will make great admins can't self-nominate but I think that someone will notice when you're actually ready.
- Advertising and canvassing
- I have no problem with posting notices in places where you're often part of the discussion. I seriously doubt that anyone who interracts with me often actually looks at my user page, and without some canvassing all you get are admin hopefuls and regulars commenting, not users who know the editor in question. I do think any advertisements should be contained to places where the candidate is a regular contributor.
- Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
- There are too many questions posted which can be paraphrased from the cheatsheet. The only questions raised should be opinion and critical reasoning questions (and not like the challenge) and even then not many. I would much prefer questions to the effect of "Show us examples where you have handled situations well" "Where do you contribute now." Judge a candidate on their record not on the elloquence of their speech-writing. While it matters how well an admin expresses themself, the worst vandal could be just as eloquent.
- Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
- Votes are worthless. One good point (ie not "I don't like him, he's mean" which sounds a lot like "I don't like it") raised in opposition, supported by others, and unanswered by the editors actions or rebuttal should be enough to disqualify. Conversely, the lack of such a point should result in success. No vote counting please.
- Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
- Better than a snowball close but not appropriate after more than a few votes. Candidates (successful or otherwise) should take all the critical feedback they can get and use it to be a better candidate (as Peyton Manning would say, "Rub some dirt on it"). Though I will say that DHMO's withdrawal was stylish.
- Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes
WP:NOTNOW closes)
- Must be done somehow and someone has to make the judgment call. I just can't tolerate "required percentages" to detirmin outcome (see "Election"). I still prefer WP:SNOW to WP:NOTNOW as "it just won't pass, sorry" is a better message than "oh aren't you cute now stop bothering us".
- Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
- Should be expected if not required, also finding an admin mentor is a great idea. Some candidate will just hit the ground running and not need the training but most will benefit from some direction.
- Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
- All admins should be open to recall and be willing to shelve the mop (at least temporarily) when other admins call their actions into question. But the process as it stands seems overly arbitrary and pretty useless. I'd bet it usually ends up at ArbCom anyway
When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:
- How do you view the role of an administrator?
- Just an editor with less restrictions. No more and no less. There are certain pressures to uphold greater standards but we should all be held to such ideals. The definition of a "good" editor should be synonymous with a "good" admin.
- What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
- Willingness to discuss any action taken and live by the comunity consensus. No soft paternalism. If the community wants to do something stupid, then tell them about it, but live by the consensus.
Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:
- Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
- Fairly often. I am only annoyed that it becomes a vote-counting exercise rather than an examination of a candidate. Also see "Election" above.
- Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
- No, not as yet.
- Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
- The outlook we should have when looking at a candidate should be one of "Are there any significant reasons not to trust them with the mop?" rather than, as exists now, "Have the people they've conflicted with in the past left the encyclopedia yet?"
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.
* [[User:Alanbly/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~
Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.
This question page was generated by {{ RFAReview}} at 16:41 on 20 June 2008.