User:Croctotheface/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'm not really sure what this question is asking. If it's asking whether inviting someone to stand is good or bad, it's obviously good. What better way is there to get someone to stand?
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
There is nothing wrong with this at all. Coaching someone to actually use the tools well sounds like mentoring, which is a great way to bring people through this kind of system. Coaching someone to give responses that increase the likelihood that their nomination will be supported is less appealing, but it's not as if nominees can't examine past nominations themselves and base their answers on what's happened in them. Discouraging editors from discussing the nomination process on WP space will only encourage them to discuss it elsewhere, in private, in a place that does not leave a record. If it appears that an editor is being disingenuous in representing his or her views because he wants to receive the tools by any means necessary, that should be clear in the record, and those participating in the RfA discussion can take that into consideration.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
...
Advertising and canvassing
This is almost unilaterally bad. A holistic review of a candidate's record and history is the best way to decide whether or not to give that person the admin tools. Canvassing invites editors to participate in the discussion not on the basis of a review of a candidate's record, but rather on the basis of personal opinions formed while working together on one part of the project or another. Editors should not become admins because they have made friends here. They should be made admins because it would improve the project to give them the administrative tools.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
This is an essential part of the process. Seeing how someone answers your questions is the best way to find out how and what they think and how they are likely to act.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
...
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
...
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
...
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
Post-election training is a great idea for anything like this.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
I don't think there's a purpose to the notion of voluntarily subjecting yourself to recall. Currently, my understanding is that an administrator who abuses the tools will be stripped of them. That's true whether or not the admin in question is "open to recall" or not. Likewise, an administrator who does not abuse his power should remain an admin as long as he wishes. The notion of a recall serves no function unless it provides for a means to strip an admin of the tools even if he does not abuse them.

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?
The role of an administrator should be limited. It should be odd for the average editor to think of administrators as having "power." Except for the roles given specifically to them, admins should not be distinguishable from other editors. Although admins may, by virtue of their temperament, be skilled at helping editors work together, they should not have any "power" to compel them to. Their opinions should not count for more than other editors' with respect to content or policy interpretation. It is their job to identify consensus (or lack of consensus) and to enforce specific policies. It is not their role to make consensus or make policy. To most editors, the majority of work that admins do should be considered drudgery. I expect that most editors agree that admins should not take any thrill in their "power." We should go beyond this and make sure that whatever "power" admins may have is simply not thrilling.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
Humility, patience, and good judgment.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
No, and I don't intend to. Evaluating candidates does not appeal to me.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
No, and I don't intend to. The role of an administrator does not appeal to me.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
...

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 06:12 on 29 June 2008.