User:Itub/RfA review

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)

   No comments.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Fine as long as it is really optional and the candidate wants it.

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

   I think it is better when the candidate is nominated by someone else, especially if it the nominator is someone I know I can trust; I see it as a "letter of recommendation". However, I wouldn't oppose someone just because of a self-nomination, and self-nominations should be allowed. In mmany of the cases I've seen, co-nominations are overkill. They are useful only if they really add something new. Note: here I'm talking about co-nominators who write their own statement; I see no problem with having one statement with multiple signatories.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Too much fuss is made about this. I think public advertising, especially in relevant wikiprojects, should be encouraged. It is better if the people who really know the candidate participate, rather than just having the "regulars" who frequent RfA.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Many of the questions I see are ridiculous in my opinion. First, it is hypocritical to claim that the questions are optional, when they really are not. I very often see opposes based on not answering a question. Second, I think RfA should not be like an exam or a senate confirmation hearing for the supreme court, replete with trick questions about hypothetical situations and fuzzy questions about opinions. The only questions that are relevant in my opinion are the ones that ask about actual facts from the candidate's experience. The only thing that voters need to know is "can we trust this candidate's judgment?", not "does this candidate already know all the intricacies of speedy deletion criterion #6"?

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

   It is a vote, whatever we may wish. It is a bit too much to ask of the bureaucrats that they really weigh 200 opinions, expressed to varying degrees of detail, and make a judgment, so in the end it is numbers that mater. The simplest solution to the current schizophrenic situation is to accept it as a simple vote and only allow votes on the RfA page, keeping comments in the talk page. Or allow statements with a length limit, on the main page, similar to the practice at RFARB, where threading and ping-pong debate are discouraged. Perhaps the process could be divided into two stages, first the statements, and then the votes.

   If we really wanted to treat RfA as a something other than a vote, something which I doubt would work, some drastic measures would be required. 1) Stop numbering the !votes. 2) Summarily discount the !votes that don't contribute anything (i.e., don't give a substantial reason). 3) Stop separating the debate into support and oppose sections. 4) Empower bureaucrats to really use their judgment and make a decision even if it doesn't fit the majority (although perhaps it would be better to require consensus among at least 3 bureaucrats or so, rather than put the burden of the decision on just one person); 5) Add a review process so that the bureaucrat's decision can be appealed (that would mean that the admin bit wouldn't be flipped on until after a certain wait to see if there are objections.)

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   It seems obvious to me that candidates should be allowed to withdraw if they wish.

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

   See my response to election, where I touched on this topic.

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

   Same as coaching, it's fine as long as it's optional.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    It is useless unless it is universal. Having only people who volunteer open to recall, and then under sui generis conditions for each case doesn't work in my opinion, and only provides fuel to the fire of whether to support or oppose someone based on their recall preferences.

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?

   Not a big deal. Anyone who has shown good judgment and commitment to the project should be an admin. Despite the name, admins should not be "administrators" in the normal sense of the word; they shouldn't be bosses, cops, or elite club members. I would see granting adminship more as something like granting citizenship, rather than something like granting a promotion.

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

   The ability and willingness to think before acting, and to admit one's errors and learn from them. Other desirable attributes, such as civility, are a natural consequence.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   Yes. I try to make my point and avoid engaging into debates. Usually I vote to support someone I know will be a good admin.

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

   No.

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

   No.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 12:34 on 26 June 2008.