User:Bibliomaniac15/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:

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
My feeling is that good, trustworthy candidates are being greatly intimidated by RFA, or rather, the fear of the fierce, razor-bladed opposition that might come. Nothing irks me more than disrespect in an RFA, whether it be answering the candidate's optional questions (which I have encountered), or an utterly sarcastic oppose. I believe that it is practices like this that are causing administrative hopefuls to shun RFA and adminship.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
I don't understand the beef with admin coaching. It's always been my view that coaching is not for gaming the system or for the sole purpose of passing RFA. I have always held that it is more like an extended, up-close editor review. It is where you can analyze and improve yourself. I don't speak for the actions of others, but "admin" coaching is somewhat of a deceptive name. It is more like adoption on a higher level. I do, however, see a problem when we have several of our younger users being too eager to seek adminship, before they are ready. I see that they have passion for being a Wikipedian, but too much passion is very dangerous when you have a role that requires a calm mind. I've been requested a few times by these types of users, but for their own sake I tell them to gain more experience before heading out.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
One of the things that really gets my goat is the opposition against self-nomination. It is a basic tenet of ours to be bold in what we do. Can it not be seen that a self-nomination is not mere power-hunger (in most cases)? Rather, it is an affirmation saying "I am sure I can improve the encyclopedia, please let me help." It also takes some balls to step up to do this. In any case, I find that self-nomination is actually a plus for the user. Now on the subject of nominations. I've nominated a few users, and I find that it is the duty of the nominator to make sure that the nomination is not turning into a mosh pit. A nominator should, ideally, act like a moderator, helping to keep everything cool. On co-noms, I do not see anything wrong with a co-nom, so long as the number doesn't exceed 3 noms. Seriously, if you have more than that, just give an extra-big support.
Advertising and canvassing
Canvassing has always been a no-no, but most candidates have been mature enough not to spam people's talk pages with RFA notices. A template on the user page suffices, anything else than that is probably attention hogging. I would, however, like to lend my views to a semi-related topic that came up a while ago, when a user posted notices to various user talk pages saying that they would work harder to prepare for a future RFA. I think that it's a fine gesture, actually. In this day and age, where a single slip-up, real or perceived, can sabotage your chances of passing RFA forever, doing something like that takes balls of granite.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
Much has been said about how candidates are often deluged by questions. There's a very simple explanation for this: not enough higher-level "thinking" questions. Many of us feel that it is needed to ask what the difference between an indef block and a ban is or to give a short summary of blocking, deleting, and protecting. Unfortunately, this almost always tells us nothing except for how well a candidate can cut and paste. The question section is not a quiz, it is where a candidate's application of their experience comes into play.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
There are two topics I'd like to share a stand on. The first is the use of the word "strong." I am under the impression that the use of "strong oppose" is not uncivil. "Strong" has a neutral connotation, and it is only counted as one vote anyway. However, it shouldn't be used when there is not strong proof demonstrating why it is such an issue for the candidate. The second is questioning opposes. Some users are especially litigious and have strong convictions. My impression is that the burden of proof is on the opposition, and they should be obligated to explain their reasoning. Much also has been discussed (or flamed, however you look at the discussion) about Kurt Weber's opposes, and to a lesser extent, Friday's. I do not agree with Kurt Weber. I've only seen instances of power-hunger in a few candidates, and a self-nomination is almost always not a sign of it. My impression is that he can say what he wants, but I feel that his opposition has sparked enough controversy to almost be disruptive.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
Withdrawal is a sign of maturity. It is a sign that one acknowledges that they must work harder to gain more trust, and in most cases, they do. In this day and age of arbitrary voting, it is common for even the best candidates to be turned down multiple times.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
Most of the time, consensus is clear-cut about whether to promote or not. However, in closer cases where support and opposition are divided, I think it would be good to explain the rationale behind the final decision. IAR decisions should always be done under the consensus of a bureaucrat chat, in my opinion. IAR in RFA/B's are a very contentious topic and must be carefully analyzed. I do think that if a candidate has an IAR pass, they would be much more careful with the tools so as to gain trust, but I do not think that IAR should be readily invoked for RFA. On the topic of NOTNOW closes, I have no opposition against SNOW closing, but I don't like to or want to SNOW close. I feel a little guilt, and I suppose that's what keeps me from doing so.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
I think that New Admin School and a good thorough read-up on administrative processes is more than enough for new admins to get the basics. I think that we have better things to do than babysit new admins with "probationatory adminship." It sounds like a miscreant became a sysop, and really all that's necessary are a few pointers when a new admin makes a mistake, a check over their first few actions.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
All administrators and users are responsible for their actions. It therefore follows that administrators should be easily desysopped, right? Wrong. The largest Wikipedia does not have a separate process dedicated to rooting out the rotten admins, apart from bureau-crap-cy we call ArbCom. I think it would be better if we had more discussion relating to a unified recall process instead of this "RFA reform" stuff.

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?
An administrator is a very active user who is knowledgeable in how Wikipedia works. Simple. By corollary, the administrator uses that knowledge to serve as a role model for other users.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
I believe that administrator's use of tools should learn from Yoda. If he can, he avoids using his lightsaber, instead wielding his power in the force. His lightsaber is more of a last resort, and really not as effective as his prodigious power in the force. Similarly, I believe that administrators should work like him: Use your skill as an editor first and foremost, then turn to the tools when that is not successful. In order to master this concept, the editor must be mature, experienced, civil, prompt, and trustworthy. I do not believe that mainspace is the only way to gaining experience. We all have our different ways of learning. Some of us are very good at bots and programming, while others sift through the gruntwork of images. Such people, I find, are often more equipped than those who just churn out articles.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
Yes, I have voted many times. My view about voting is that I only participate in the RFAs of those whom I have had experiences with. I feel that personal experience is the best way to know how someone will do.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
Yes, I have. My experience was not the firestorm people think it was. I still think that FAC is harder than RFA.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
My opinion is that RFA is not broken as a process, rather, the participants forget that they are part of a community. I think the incessant reforms reflect the desire to blame something, to find a scrapegoat without incurring blame on oneself. I believe more work needs to be done towards RFB and admin recall.

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:Bibliomaniac15/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 03:43 on 14 June 2008.