User:CJ/RfA review

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'm somewhat unclear on the purpose of this question. There's nothing wrong with inviting someone to stand as a candidate so long as the invitee is suitable for adminship. To that end, I do believe that a general guideline of base standards for candidacy (which is something quite apart from a criteria) would be appropriate, at least for clarity's sake.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I've always been highly suspicious of this and I'm certainly against any formal process. An editor shouldn't need to be coached to become an admin; they should have attained the experience level naturally. That said, there's nothing wrong with providing informal guidance to other editors.

3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)

   There isn't anything necessarily wrong with any. Nominations and co-nominations (which are highly superfluous beyond one or two) by editors (or better yet, admins) in good standing and familiar with the candidate are most useful in the present system. Unfortunately, self-nominations currently carry with them a certain level of suspicion over the candidate's capabilities and motivations. For this reason, and also because adminship is generally perceived as a reward or promotion, I am open to the merits of a system based exclusively on self-noms.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   So long as the process remains primarily a numbers game, this can be extremely disruptive. However, I believe WP:CANVASS is adequate.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   I think this has come to border on the ludicrous. I'd prefer that we return to just a set of standard questions, though users should feel free to request clarifications to any responses the candidate may give.

6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

   Generally I prefer reasons to be given for either position, though clearly the burden to substantiate falls with those opposed.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   This is fine. The candidate should feel free to withdraw at any time and the process should be geared towards a quick and dignified exit.

8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)

   This is also fine. I believe that bureaucrats have done a mostly exceptional job. If anything, I'd like more emphasis on discretionary decisions.

9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)

   I don't see why this should be needed. If they're not capable of dealing with a few new features, they shouldn't have become admins. Of course, as with anything, there's nothing wrong with seeking informal advice from others.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I don't like this. I don't doubt the good intentions of those participating, but it's a fundamentally flawed proposition and the fact that it exists so haphazardly presently is especially egregious.

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?

   Just as an editor who is trusted to use a few extra tools as they go about advancing the encyclopædia.

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

   Generally good judgement/common-sense and a sound understanding of policy and, more importantly, the spirit of the project. An ability to interact civilly and remain free of egotism, is also necessary.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?

   Yes, several. I've also nominated several. However, I'm no longer inclined to participate except in requests where I'm familiar with the candidate.

2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?

   Yes, way back when. It was quick and painless.

3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?

   I wouldn't be completing this questionnaire if I didn't think reform was necessary. I am relatively open as to whether the existing process should be tinkered with or whether it should be substantially or entirely replaced. If it is to be modified, I'd like to see something done to counter perceptions of adminship as a reward and the (I think) consequent pile-ons either approving or denying it. If it is to be replaced, I tend to favour the Rfc model.

   I should clarify that I do think the process works OK overall. However, I believe it could be made to work better, and I'm open to the argument that there may be a better method.

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 18:09 on 25 June 2008.