User:Docboat/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:

1. Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)

   How does one find a good quality admin? Self-nomination? But what are the motives for this? Self-aggrandisement perhaps, genuine desire to assist, curiosity as to the tools offered? What about nomination by other editors? If there is an agenda being pushed by a cabal of editors, then we run into troubles. What about nomination from amongst existing admins? But we complain that so many are of mediocre quality, noted for not raising their heads above the parapets of editorial battlements. I wonder if there should not be a progreive move toward gaining "the tools" for all editors who have reached certain milestones in quality edits, and for the process to be reversed - ie that tools are sought to be removed from those who abuse the position of trust.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Essential - ought to be documented as having being attained, and if not, then tools removed

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

   If we do not establish a progressive accretion of tools with increasing edit count, then I would propose proposal to adminship by a group of experienced admins. The candidate can self-nominate, or be nominated to, that group, which can then put suitable candidates to the community.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Advertising - no. We should judge by the quality of work already done. Canvassing - no problem in raising awareness of the process.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Continue. But the number of duff questions should be limited. Sometimes it appears to be a contest of "who can ask the most obtuse question"

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

   Support as is

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Support as is

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

   Very much in favour of this.

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

   Should be mandatory

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I think all administrators should be open to removal of the tools in easier, less embarrassing form. But I am very concerned by recent witch hunts. Also am very concerned by some admins with feelings of superiority over others, an arrogant line taken of being above the herd. would push for making adminship easier, but for review of admin actions to be more rigorous. And also for those who harass admins being more liable to answer for their actions - there is too soft a line on those who game the system and cause good admins real anguish.

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?

   Someone who maintains order in wikipedia in a wide variety of situations. Someone who cares for the encyclopaedia. Someone who feels responsible for high quality, and demands a lot from themselves.

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

   Mature mind (not necessarily mature in years). Open to questions. Good language skills. Able to communicate - not just able to "write" - but to communicate - to understand others, AND to make oneself understood. Able to find an area of work on wikipedia in which they are competent, enthusiastic and regular.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   Yes. No problems at all. Had to bite back the desire to respond to other comments. We should stamp out the tendency to vote, then make a comment for/against the votes others have placed. An vote should be just that, a vote, and not the start of a content dispute.

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

   No, not yet

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

   Not at the moment. This may change .....

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 15:35 on 21 June 2008.