| A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
|---|
Welcome to the Question phase of RfA Review. We hope you'll take the time to respond to our 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.
To participate in the review, please create a subpage in your user area to hold your answers, by clicking Special:Mypage/RfA review, Once you've done that, add the following text: {{subst:RFAReview}}, to your usersubpage, and it will generate the questions on your subpage, as well as code it for use once you've completed your responses. Alternatively, have the page automatically generated for you and remove the top line of code.
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 here and linked to from the responses section, but will have the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the project's 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!
When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:
I have nominated, I believe, four editors for adminship, of whome three were promoted. I look for a reasonable, broad base of experience in at least most areas of the project; I follow up and consider editors with whom I interact in a positive way. I need to know the style of an editor before i nominate them.
I have no problem with admin coaching (I had none) so long as it is not assumed that coaching=qualification
A nomination should ideally indicate why the candidate is being proposed. (What an obvious comment). Not all do. I take no more account of multiple nominations than I do of one, and would prefer that co-noms merely added comments in the "Support" section. I have no problem with self-noms, as I decide on the basis of the editor's past history. (Neither do I have a problem with a particular editor who objects to self- noms on principle, although i would rather he decided on the basis of the applicant's qualities.)
It is acceptable in wikipedia to insert a comment on a userpage indicating that an editor is seeking admin responsibility. Any other form of canvassing should, in my opinion, disqualify a candidate immediately.
The presentation of questions is clearly an integral part of the process. They should be relevant to the applicants skill or record; irrelevant questions (e.g. do you play the violin) should be removed by the first 'crat to see them.
Selection is always stated not to be a vote, and therefore not to be an election. I would hope that 'crats would give greater weight to comments, either for or against, which gave reasons for the opinion expressed
Any candidate should be free to withdraw at his/her discretion. Not contoversial, surely?
Usually this decision is both clear and obvious. An appeal process in the case of close decisions might be a sensible concept.
New Admin School (thanks, Ryan) is a good idea but should not in my view be a requisite. Candidates should be adequately competent on selection.
In principle this idea is fine, but it is potentially open to abuse, especially by undiscovered sockpuppetry. There should, if this is to be made obligatory, be a multi-stage process to ensure that real consensus is followed.
When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:
The adminstrator is, with his colleagues, the guardian of the integrity of the encyclopedia
A good knowledge of wiki policy, and an agreement therewith. Patience. Calmness. Common sense. Adequate spare time, and the incentive to use it for the benefit of the project
Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:
I have voted many times. In most cases, although not always, the decision was in line with my personal opinion.
I stood on two occasions. On the first occasion I answered a question (late at night) without full understanding and failed to pass RfA. I became and admim on my second attempt.
Given that editors hold widely differing views on minimum requirements for length of time as editor, number of edits, number of talkspace edits, number of edit summaries, and so forth, have we considered setting minimum standards for these parameters? It would prevent the disappointment of applicants who, purely for lack of experience, get bounced and leave the project.