User:RickinBaltimore/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)

   I feel this is an important part of the process, as it shows that the candidate already has support from some segment of the community, and already has demonstrated some of the qualities of being an admin.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   While I do not feel this should be mandatory, admin coaching should be highly recommended for any admin candidates. This way a possible new admin can "learn the ropes" from an experienced admin with how to work on the day-to-day duties, as well as answer any question about some of the more common issues admins will come across.

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

   This is a key part of the process, as this is where a nominee or nominator "sells" the candidate to the community. Self-nominations should not be seen as inferior, or someone who is power hungry, as every person nominated, either by someone or by themselves, is trying to help the project in this regard.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   WP:CANVASS is pretty clear on this, as any candidate, or nominator should not petition other editors to vote in a RfA for or against a candidate. RfA's should be viewed from a neutral stance, and not from someone who tries to votestack with editors who would be friendly, or in some cases try to sabotage a RfA.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Questions for the candidate are crucial in determining how a candidate thinks, and what possible actions they would take as an administrator. The questions asked should be relevant to the nomination, and should not be frivolous or "throwaway" questions for the purpose of asking them.

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

   I feel that any support/oppose votes need to have a good solid reasoning, and people who vote strictly to disrupt the process or prove a WP:POINT need to have their votes nullified. "Per User X" support or opposes of course should be allowed if someone agrees with a previous editor's reasoning.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Every candidate should have the right to withdraw, especially if the nomination was malformed, or if the indication is the RfA is heading to a snowball oppose.

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

   The declaration should be concise and explain the reasoning for or against the nomination, and in the case of a lengthy or complicated nomination show give details as to why a decision was made.

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

   All new admins should have a probationary period in which they shadow another admin to learn how things operate. This should tie into the Admin Coaching as I stated above.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    Admins who are open to recall should not be taken to task for being open to this. Being an admin on Wikipedia is a right granted by the community, and if the community feels an admin has over-stepped there bounds, or is not performing as an admin should, the ability to recall the admin should be used.

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?

   An administrator, at least to me, is a respected member of the Wikipedia community. I see admins as more of a guide/janitor/police officer, who help preserve the integrity of the project through their extensive knowledge and ability to make sound decisions.

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

   An administrator needs to be flexible, yet well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Admins also need to have a thick skin, as editors who are here to vandalize, or are single-purpose accounts, will try and cause trouble, attack them personally, and basically try to make their jobs diffcult. Admins also need to communicate well and explain their actions in depth when needed to.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   Yes, a few times, and I have not had any problems when voting in an RfA.

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

   I was a candidate over a year ago, and at that time I was opposed for an admin position due to a lack of edits. I used the positive critiques from that RfA to help my chances in the future when I decide to renominate myself, or if someone nominates me.

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

   I feel the process, while having it's minor flaws, works and works well.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 12:38 on 24 June 2008.