| 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 have never done so, nor do I intend to. I have sometimes suggested to someone that they may consider adminship, on the basis of their contributions and apparent familiarity with policy etc., but not in any process orientated capacity.
- Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
- Un-necessary. Either the candidate will be good enough or not, and the only way of finding out if they are of the correct material is how they act once they have the bits.
- Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
- Third party nom/co-nom is pretty unimportant, as I will make up my mind on review of contribs, talkpage use, Interiot count, and the candidates responses to questions. Self nom is no different as, being a self nom myself, good candidates may work in areas not visited by users who will nominate,
- Advertising and canvassing
- The first is not needed, the regulars at RfA are a good representation of the community and the candidates supporters (and detractors) will quickly become aware of the request. The second should not be permitted as, as noted above, there should be enough of a representation of the community to come to the appropriate decision - as judged by the 'Crat.
- Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
- I dislike formulaic questions outside of the primary optional questions - people can learn the formulaic answers by studying past RfA's. Questions prompted by earlier responses, or from review of the candidates history, are more useful in helping others make up their minds.
- Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
- A suggestion that there has been a review by a supporter will help the 'Crat. Opposers must provide a reason for both the 'Crat and also for the benefit of others in making their decision. Further, later supports should also indicate they are aware of any opposers reasons - again for the benefit of the 'Crat.
- Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
- Totally in the discretion of the candidate, whether they publish their reasons or not.
- Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes
WP:NOTNOW closes)
- Only important when the use of the bureaucrats discretion is involved, otherwise it is a simple enacting of the evident consensus.
- Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
- I wasn't aware until recently there was one. I prefer the old method of caution and not wanting to look to much the newbie admin to regulate use of the tools in the early days - it may be that "graduating" from New Admin School may make some (I admit I have not yet seen it) more likely to overconfidence and thus making mistakes.
- Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
- Oppose - even processes as open as Lar's. ArbCom needs to be far more responsive to requests to desysop, the ArbCom request to consider desysop should be less loaded for all parties, and the generally more dispassionate gravitas of ArbCom is the most appropriate for considering desysopping.
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?
- Under-appreciated and extremely rewarding.
- What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
- A willingness to communicate (which isn't only just about responding, but evidently considering what is said and trying to answer the relevant points) and accessibility.
Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:
- Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
- Yes. Often very rewarding, although a bit dispiriting when faced with a earnest but inappropriate candidature.
- Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
- Yes, once. Successful, with the use of the closing 'Crats discretion... How do you think it felt, given the circumstances?
- Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
- I take the view that the process is far from perfect, but that there has been nothing that has been proposed to replace it that is anywhere near as comprehensive.
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:LessHeard vanU/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~
Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.
This question page was generated by {{ RFAReview}} at 23:44 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 have never done so, nor do I intend to. I have sometimes suggested to someone that they may consider adminship, on the basis of their contributions and apparent familiarity with policy etc., but not in any process orientated capacity.
- Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
- Un-necessary. Either the candidate will be good enough or not, and the only way of finding out if they are of the correct material is how they act once they have the bits.
- Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
- Third party nom/co-nom is pretty unimportant, as I will make up my mind on review of contribs, talkpage use, Interiot count, and the candidates responses to questions. Self nom is no different as, being a self nom myself, good candidates may work in areas not visited by users who will nominate,
- Advertising and canvassing
- The first is not needed, the regulars at RfA are a good representation of the community and the candidates supporters (and detractors) will quickly become aware of the request. The second should not be permitted as, as noted above, there should be enough of a representation of the community to come to the appropriate decision - as judged by the 'Crat.
- Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
- I dislike formulaic questions outside of the primary optional questions - people can learn the formulaic answers by studying past RfA's. Questions prompted by earlier responses, or from review of the candidates history, are more useful in helping others make up their minds.
- Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
- A suggestion that there has been a review by a supporter will help the 'Crat. Opposers must provide a reason for both the 'Crat and also for the benefit of others in making their decision. Further, later supports should also indicate they are aware of any opposers reasons - again for the benefit of the 'Crat.
- Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
- Totally in the discretion of the candidate, whether they publish their reasons or not.
- Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes
WP:NOTNOW closes)
- Only important when the use of the bureaucrats discretion is involved, otherwise it is a simple enacting of the evident consensus.
- Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
- I wasn't aware until recently there was one. I prefer the old method of caution and not wanting to look to much the newbie admin to regulate use of the tools in the early days - it may be that "graduating" from New Admin School may make some (I admit I have not yet seen it) more likely to overconfidence and thus making mistakes.
- Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
- Oppose - even processes as open as Lar's. ArbCom needs to be far more responsive to requests to desysop, the ArbCom request to consider desysop should be less loaded for all parties, and the generally more dispassionate gravitas of ArbCom is the most appropriate for considering desysopping.
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?
- Under-appreciated and extremely rewarding.
- What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
- A willingness to communicate (which isn't only just about responding, but evidently considering what is said and trying to answer the relevant points) and accessibility.
Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:
- Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
- Yes. Often very rewarding, although a bit dispiriting when faced with a earnest but inappropriate candidature.
- Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
- Yes, once. Successful, with the use of the closing 'Crats discretion... How do you think it felt, given the circumstances?
- Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
- I take the view that the process is far from perfect, but that there has been nothing that has been proposed to replace it that is anywhere near as comprehensive.
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:LessHeard vanU/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~
Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.
This question page was generated by {{ RFAReview}} at 23:44 on 20 June 2008.