User:Psu256/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)
The ideal candidate should not be an activist. That does not mean they don't express opinions, but civility should always prevail. The inability to be civil, especially when using the written word (which benefits from the ability to temper emotion) should be a disqualifier. Administrators should exemplify rationality. Anyone with such a track record should be eligible.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
I know I had my name on the list for a long time and no one signed up to help. We need to encourage more coaches if that is still a common problem.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
I don't prefer self-nomination. If an individual has made significant contributions to the project, their desire and qualifications for adminship should be apparent from their history.
Advertising and canvassing
I don't mind it too much, as long as you aren't using a bot to make hundreds or thousands of edits on talk pages, etc. Don't abuse the servers to make it happen.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
Candidates shouldn't have to debate questions that don't directly pertain to the duties of an admin, unless it calls their having a cool head into question.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
I would prefer a secret ballot (while the balloting is going on, the results can be revealed once it is over.) You should be able to discuss the pros and cons of nominating a particular individual, but the prior votes should not be allowed to influence future ones.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
I think withdrawls are probably a result of the election process. I hate to see people withdraw even if the election is not over, just because they see a lot of oppose votes before voting closes.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
I'd like to not see NOTNOW - I think even if there is a large list of opposes, there may still be useful advice to be given to the candidate in what they need to improve upon that may show up if the seven day period is allowed to elapse.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
I am not an admin, so I don't know the scope of post-election training. In the absence of pre-RfA coaching, I think this training would be utterly essential.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
How about yearly performance reviews? :)

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?
Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people. It is the job of the administrator to make sure the Wikipedia is able to operate in a manner that accomodates as much freedom as possible in its use, while making sure that a standard of quality is maintained.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
The administrator should be trusted to appropriately administer the WP according to established policy, be able to put aside personal objections to policy that is widely accepted, be bold in making decisions based on that policy, and to not take it personally if another admin disagrees and reverts. Wheel-warring is teh evil. :) There are much better ways to deal with conflicts.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
I don't regularly vote in RfAs. I just want to come here for information, use the WP, make wikignome types of edits when I am reading things that need cleanup, etc. I am interested in knowing the policies and procedures so I don't stray from them, but I don't worry myself with the identities of individual admins or those seeking to be admins.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
No I have not. I wouldn't be opposed to doing so, but I don't see myself as editing enough to warrant the trouble only so every once in a while I could speedy something. :)
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
In general, I think it works. I sometimes fear that despite WP:NPA, oppose votes are sometimes personal. That is one reason I'd like to see a way to only reveal the actual votes once the voting period has elapsed.

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:Psu256/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 21:09 on 26 June 2008.