User:Fahrenheit451/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 think that any user being nominated should edit Wikipedia for at least one year.

2.Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

Both formal and informal coaching can be useful if the admin perceives the need for it.

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

There is no reason for co-nomination. Nomination and self-nomination are acceptable.

4.Advertising and canvassing

There is no reason to prevent this so long as it does not harass or coerce users or admins.

5.Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

Users have the right to ask the candidate questions relevant to adminship.

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

Position reasons should always be stated. The margin should be more than a simple majority. 60% or higher indicates real support. At least 75% of the voters should NOT be admins. An old boy network is not needed on Wikipedia.

7.Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

Always the candidate's prerogative.

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

The bureaucrat should verify that 75% or more of the voters are non-admin users.

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

There should be a voluntary online tutorial available to new admins or aspiring admins.

10.Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

There needs to be a recall process in place for all admins. Wikipedia does not need any "admins for life" who, like Robert Mugabe, can only be "removed by God".

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?

To ensure that Wikipedia policy and guidelines are applied in all articles. The admin is NOT a cop.

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

Tolerance, impartiality, and knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

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 have. On one occasion I was treated with contemptuous condescension by a candidate who received almost half his support from old boy network admins.

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

Never.

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

The process needs this review and correction.

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 22:28 on 26 June 2008.