User:Epbr123/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)
I have been quite active at nominating users for adminship. It is generally quite easy to predict which editors will pass an RfA, as long as you're up-to-date with the current vogues at RfA. However, there are occassional unfortunate nominees who fail for totally unpredictable and spurious reasons, so it's impossible to be 100% sure whether a candidate will pass. Nominators do have a responsibility to warn users of the risks involved with their RfA, to make sure they are prepared for the RfA, and to give encouragement if doesn't go well.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
Trying to improve a future RfA candidate's knowledge of admin-related matters is clearly a good thing. The effect admin coaching has had on RfA voting has not been so good. Initially, some supported candidates just because they had been through admin coaching, and now some oppose just because a candidate has been through admin coaching. However, I feel admin coaching, whether formal or informal, is a net benefit to Wikipedia.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
I have no opposition to co-nominations and self-nominations, and they do really affect how I assess a candidate. Self-nominees do tend to fail RfAs though, as they tend to be new users who are unvetted and don't know they'll have more chance of passing if they wait for someone else to nominated them. I don't view a self-nominee as having any more "power hunger" than someone who knows it's better to wait for someone else to nominated them. However, self-nominations should be encouraged in cases where well-qualified users have gone unnoticed. Nominators are generally limited to RfA regulars, and potential good candidates shouldn't have to make themselves known at RfA to get a nomination.
Advertising and canvassing
I'm opposed to canvassing as I think the proportion of unbiased participants in an RfA should be maximised. It's true that canvassing will still occur via email, but at least prohibiting canvassing over Wikipedia will lessen the amount.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
I think questions are good, as they are usually revealing. I'm in favour of the stock questions such as "What's the difference between a block and a ban?", as these ensure that candidates know the basics, even if they have copied someone else's answer. It is unfair though that some candidates are asked more than others, and I am sympathetic to nominees who don't have time to answer too many. Although, it doesn't actually take much time to answer questions if you already know the answer - it's possibly a warning sign if a candidate has to spend more than a few minutes thinking of an answer. It is also a shame when users clearly only ask questions to give the candidate a hard time - I've often seen opposers do this.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
Opposers should provide a reason in order to show their opposition is valid and not purely out of vindictiveness or flippancy. There's less of a need for supporters to give a reason, as they will usually just be repeating the nomination statement.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
I respect a nominees wishes to withdraw for whatever reason.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
It is appropriate to close RfAs early when it would be a waste of users' time keeping it open.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
New admins should be encouraged to go through the New Admin School. It only takes a few minutes.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

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?
Someone qualified to perform admin tasks.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
They should be able to deal with conflict tactfully, have good policy knowledge, and be knowledgeable about the admin areas they participate in.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
I've participated in quite a few.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
I've been through two, with the second one successful. Probably more needs to be done to prevent personal attacks against nominees.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
No

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:Epbr123/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 19:21 on 13 June 2008.