User:Ajcfreak/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)
 * 2) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Quite necessary. However, admins/editors who wish to be coaches need close monitoring.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * Really good right now. But we could do without the self-nomination.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * Should be allowed on a larger scale. In most cases, editors across the Wiki need to know that these RfAs take place and that they can vote too!
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Really good. Is there a standard set of questions that are asked to every candidate? There should be.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * People could club/group support/oppose votes with the same reasoning under a sub-heading of some sort; this would make it easy for another editor who comes across the vote. Anyways, we don't count the number of votes, so the actual number does not matter - it's the arguments. So, as per the arguments, maybe editors/admins could club their votes.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * 2) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * 3) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * Really useful to hone the skills of the newly elected Admin.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * This is necessary.
 * Really useful to hone the skills of the newly elected Admin.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * This is necessary.

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 overseer, a person with more dedication to the Wikipedia project than an average editor, a person who understands the workings of the project at a deeper level.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Neutrality, dedication to the values of the project, patience, willingness to co-operate.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes. Nothing out of the ordinary. Was pretty routine, although it did feel that certain other editors/admins were bashing up the person with the request, in a few cases.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * No. Don't think I ever will. :)
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * None. whatsoever. A wider knowledge increase across the entire set of editors would be great. I guess we've about millions of editors involved with this project, however, RfAs barely make it into 100s of votes (with a few rare exceptions where votes touched 200 and 300). More editors need to vote.

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.

*   added by  at

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

This question page was generated by RFAReview at 08:54 on 26 June 2008.